- 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
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.
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