Legal News

What must be proved in a contempt application (Varma v Atkinson & Mummery)

What must be proved in a contempt application (Varma v Atkinson & Mummery)
Published on: 03 December 2020
Published by: LexisPSL
  • What must be proved in a contempt application (Varma v Atkinson & Mummery)
  • What are the practical implications of this case?
  • What was the background?
  • What did the court decide?
  • Case details

Article summary

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: In dismissing each of the grounds of appeal pursued by the appellant contemnor, two points on how a committal application is proved were decided that will be essential knowledge for practitioners. First, the Court of Appeal overturned its own decision in Irtelli v Squatriti, authority that a contempt could not be proved where ‘it was impossible to conclude that the appellants had intentionally breached the injunction’. Second, where excuses for an alleged contempt are not provided by the contemnor’s evidence ‘[i]t is not the task of counsel for the applicant seeking to commit a potential contemnor to elicit further excuses from him in cross-examination when none is put forward in his evidence in chief’. Written by Rory Brown and Andrew Shipley, barristers, at 9 Stone Buildings. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents