- Committal for contempt—dealing with unrepresented contemnors (McKay v All England Lawn Tennis Club (Championships) Ltd)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: This case highlights the care that practitioners need to take when commencing committal proceedings against an alleged contemnor acting in person, to ensure the application is compliant with procedural requirements and that the hearing of the application is dealt with fairly. It also considers the relationship between mandatory orders to disclose information which may amount to an offence, and the protection of privilege against self-incrimination. The court held that section 13(2) of the Fraud Act 2006 (FA 2006) had significantly curtailed the scope of that protection, removing the right to claim the privilege in certain contexts, but preventing any information provided from being used in criminal fraud proceedings. Although Mr McKay’s appeal against the committal order made against him was ultimately rejected, the court highlighted the numerous defects in the application notice which caused Hickinbottom LJ ‘much anxiety’ in deciding the appeal, before concluding that the defects had not led to any unfairness or injustice to Mr McKay. Written by Alexander West, barrister, at Albion Chambers, Bristol.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial