Contempt and committal

This subtopic considers the different types of contempt that can be committed, the court's approach to dealing with applications to commit for contempt (sometimes referred to as ‘committal proceedings’) and the procedure for making a contempt application pursuant to CPR 81, as in force from 1 October 2020. Reference is also made to content on dealing with vexatious litigation via the use of civil restraint orders (CROs).

Contempts—the different types of contempt

The main categories of contempt that are recognised and catered for (in terms of procedure in CPR 81) are:

•
non-compliance with a court order or a solicitor’s undertaking—breaching a court order is the most common cause for contempt proceedings being initiated. For further information, see Practice Note: Civil contempt proceedings—non-compliance with a court order or undertaking. In addition, there is a wealth of case law available giving examples of when, how and for what purpose contempt proceedings for breach of a court order are brought—see Practice Note: Civil contempt proceedings—illustrative decisions
•
false statements—contempt proceedings can be brought against someone for making a false statement, eg in a witness statement verified by

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Dispute Resolution News

Dispute Resolution weekly highlights—22 May 2025

This week's edition of Dispute Resolution weekly highlights includes: analysis of a number of key DR developments and key judicial decisions including the Online Procedure Rule Committee minutes of 14 April 2025 and the Court of Appeal decision in Shorts International Ltd v Google LLC (costs capping order); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

Russian litigants flock to UK courts after record slump

Law360, London: The number of Russian litigants using London's commercial courts has more than doubled in the past year and could be a signal that sanctions have had little long-term impact on judgments, an advisory firm reported 20 May 2025.

Commercial contracts—renunciation, affirmation, and guarantees (Chugga Chugg v Privinvest)

Commercial analysis: The High Court ruled against Privinvest in a dispute over a parent company guarantee relating to a luxury yacht construction contract. The case provides valuable guidance on contract renunciation, affirmation and interpretation of guarantee clauses. The court held that discussions about potential termination did not constitute a 'clear and unequivocal' renunciation, that subsequent conduct affirmed the contract, and that a claim admitted in German insolvency remained 'contested' for guarantee enforcement purposes. The judgment offers practical insights into how commercial negotiations and conduct affect contractual rights and obligations in high-value commercial relationships. Written by Katie Chandler, Partner, Head of Disputes & Investigations UK and Natalia Faekova (senior associate) at Taylor Wessing LLP.

SCTS updates guidance on expense claims in undefended Simple Procedure Actions

The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has published updated guidance on claiming expenses in undefended Simple Procedure actions, following the recent Sheriff Appeal Court opinion in Cabot v Walls. Claimants are now required to submit a detailed account of any expenses to the court before a decision can be made. A pro forma is available for claimants without legal representation.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

News