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 a

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

Disclosure in the context of jurisdiction challenges—court reaffirms two-stage test and emphasises proportionality (Alesayi v Bank Audi SAL)

Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court has clarified the test governing applications pursuant to CPR 31.12 for specific disclosure in the context of jurisdiction challenges. Mr Justice Dias re-affirmed that the appropriate test remains the two-stage test set out in Rome v Punjab National Bank, and rejected the submission that a separate test of ‘exceptional circumstances’ applies. However, in that context, the court emphasised that disclosure must be both proportionate and targeted, and cautioned against allowing jurisdiction applications to evolve into ‘mini-trials’. Written by Alexandra Prato, Associate at RPC.

Dispute Resolution weekly highlights—1 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 11th edition of the King’s Bench Guide and the Court of Appeal decision in Freeman v Home Farm Ellingham Ltd (specific performance); dates for your diary; details of our most recently published content; and other information of general interest to dispute resolution practitioners.

Court compels disclosure in £500,000 phone crypto-theft case

Law360, London: The victim of a phone-snatching in London has secured a court order compelling four companies offering digital asset exchange services to disclose documents tied to an alleged fraud perpetrated against them after £500,000 (US$667,000) in cryptocurrency was drained from his account.

Understating the incurred costs in a cost budget did not amount to misconduct (Vardy v Rooney)

Dispute Resolution analysis: Mr Justice Cavanagh considered an appeal from a preliminary issues hearing relating to costs assessment proceedings following the trial in this well-publicised litigation. The defendant, Coleen Rooney, had included only the costs which were considered to be reasonable and proportionate within her budget, instead of actual expenditure. The judge agreed with the first instance decision of Master Gordon-Saker and concluded that the defendant had not acted unreasonably or improperly in the approach taken to the incurred costs of her budget. Whilst the court was critical of the lack of transparency and the failure to make clear the basis on which the incurred costs had been set out, there was insufficient evidence to suggest that the defendant had acted unreasonably or improperly so as to warrant a sanction for misconduct. This is an important decision as it will inevitably affect the approach taken by some parties regarding the incurred costs of a budget. Written by Claire Kretzmann, associate costs lawyer at Paragon Costs Solutions.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

News