JAMES EASDALE AND ALEXANDER EASDALE FOR BREACH OF INTERDICT GRANTED BY THIS COURT ON 5 MAY 2023 [2024] ScotCS CSOH_17 (22 February 2024)

Respondent deliberately published defamatory material accessible in Scotland, breaching the interdict; his conduct constituted wilful defiance and disrespect towards the court, amounting to contempt.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2024] ScotCS CSOH_17
Parties: Petitioner: James Easdale; Petitioner: Alexander Easdale; Respondent: Paul Hendry
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 22 February 2024
Procedural Posture: Petition and Complaint / Post Proof Hearing, Judgment on Contempt and Sentencing
Outcome: Respondent found in contempt of court for egregious breach of interdict.
Legal Topics: Breach of Interdict, Jurisdiction, Enforcement of Court Orders, Defamation, Contempt Proceedings

Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Defamation Breach of Interdict Jurisdiction Enforcement of Court Orders Contempt Proceedings

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

James Easdale

Petitioner

Alexander Easdale

Petitioner

Paul Hendry

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition and Complaint / Post Proof Hearing, Judgment on Contempt and Sentencing

Legal Issues

1 Whether the respondent breached the terms of the interdict granted by the court
2 Whether such breach amounted to contempt of court
3 Appropriate punishment for contempt

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent deliberately published defamatory material accessible in Scotland, breaching the interdict; his conduct constituted wilful defiance and disrespect towards the court, amounting to contempt.

Court Disposition

Respondent found in contempt of court for egregious breach of interdict.

Orders

Hearing fixed for 29 February 2024 for respondent to address court on sentencing options: criminal justice social work report, financial penalty, or deferred sentence for good behaviour.
Respondent may attend by video link due to health, but must attend in person if imprisonment is considered.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.