Contemplation of death describes a situation where a person takes a legal step (often making a gift or will change) because they foresee their own death as a real and reasonably imminent possibility, rather than as an abstract future event.Across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland, the phrase appears mainly in succession, probate and tax contexts, particularly in relation to gifts made in contemplation of death (donatio mortis causa) and, in the UK, inheritance tax rules on transfers made shortly before death. It is principally a judicially developed concept, interpreted through case law rather than rigid statutory definition.Key features typically include: a subjective expectation of death in the near future (for example due to serious illness or dangerous circumstances); a causal link between that expectation and the transaction; and the possibility that the transaction is conditional on death actually occurring.The expression is used with broadly consistent meaning across the four jurisdictions, though the detailed requirements and tax consequences for deathbed gifts and similar transactions differ and must be checked against the relevant local legislation and case law.

Family analysis: The judgment in Andreewitch v Moutreuil highlights the importance of warning respondents in contempt proceedings of their right to silence. Marc Livingston of Janes Solicitors, and Christopher Sykes of Doughty Street Chambers, solicitor and counsel for the appellant, examine the case and its implications.

IP analysis: The High Court struck out contempt proceedings arising from representations made to the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) following a trade mark appeal, holding that the alleged conduct did not meet the stringent threshold for criminal contempt. Applying BHP Group (UK) Ltd v Municipio de Mariana and Attorney General v Times Newspapers Ltd, the court emphasised that contempt requires improper conduct creating a real risk to the administration of justice and must serve the public interest. The respondents’ communications were characterised as legitimate submissions rather than false statements, and no requisite intent was established. The decision underscores that contempt jurisdiction should not be weaponised in commercial litigation and highlights the need for precise drafting of orders where immediate enforcement or delay is sought. Produced in partnership with Milena Velikova of Lee & Thompson LLP.

Dispute Resolution analysis: in a recent judgment, Mr Justice Hamblen in the Commercial Court granted the claimants’ application for a committal order against a defendant company (as well as a director of that company) having found that civil contempt of court was proven against them, although he did give the parties one final opportunity to purge their contempt before proceeding to sentence. In this article we highlight the court’s discussion of the relevant principles for civil contempt of court.

Civil contempt is the non-compliance with judgments, orders or other processes of the court (such as making a false statement, failing to comply with a solicitor's undertaking, interfering with the administration of justice, etc). Those found to be in contempt of court can face a fine or be imprisoned.

Dispute Resolution analysis: Richard Shepherd, barrister at Albion Chambers (Bristol), considers two recent High Court decisions in Official Receiver v Brown (2017) relating to a bankrupt’s alleged contempt of court. The first judgment focuses on the procedure for bringing contempt of court proceedings by way of certification of non-compliance in the High Court under CPR 81.15 and the process of proving the alleged contempt in cases concerning a bankrupt’s failure to comply with statutory financial disclosure obligations. The second judgment presents a detailed analysis of the sentencing process for those cases where contempt have been proved, particularly in relation to failures in disclosure and similar.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The defendant, Mr Reid, was involved in a road traffic collision in January 2018. In a witness statement in support of his claim for damages, he claimed never to have met the apparently independent witness, Mr Summers. AXA Insurance investigated, and discovered that in September 2017 Mr Reid and Mr Summers had in fact promoted a charity event together, with Mr Summers describing how Mr Reid had trained him for his first cage fight. Suddenly Mr Reid’s witness statement looked demonstrably false, and AXA initiated contempt proceedings. Having considered the seriousness of his contempt, his culpability and the harm caused or intended, Mr Reid accepted the case crossed the custody threshold. In deciding not to suspend the committal to prison, Mrs Justice Eady decided she would be failing in her duty to do justice more generally if an immediate term of imprisonment was not imposed, and committed Mr Reid to prison for eight weeks. Written by Alex West, barrister at Albion Chambers, Bristol.

Dispute Resolution analysis: This case concerned an application made during existing proceedings to commit Mr Khan, the respondent, to prison for admitted false statements made within the attachments to his defence in a civil claim, which had been verified by a statement of truth. The false statements related to entries in a schedule which the respondent said related to legitimate company expenses, but were in fact payments to prostitutes for his personal benefit. While the court questioned the practice of making such an application within existing proceedings, it nonetheless proceeded to sentence the respondent to ten weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for one year. The court was guided by the sentencing principles outlined in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd v Khan and Zafar. The case is useful for any practitioner considering making a committal application within existing proceedings. Written by Alexander West, barrister at Albion Chambers.

Dispute Resolution analysis: This judgment dealt with sentencing for 31 particularised grounds of contempt, following protracted litigation between Super-Max Offshore Holdings and their former owner and later Executive Chairman, Rakesh Malhotra. Sir Michael Burton divided the 31 offences into five categories of seriousness, applying a combination of concurrent and consecutive custodial sentences before making an overall reduction to account for totality. The total sentence was 15 months—stayed pending appeal to the Court of Appeal. The judge rejected a submission that the court should take into account the impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) when sentencing, although it is not clear whether he was specifically referred to the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice in R v Manning [2020] EWCA Crim 592 where it was held that ‘the current conditions in prisons represent a factor which can properly be taken into account in deciding whether to suspend a sentence.’ Written by Alexander West, barrister, at Albion Chambers, Bristol.

Dispute Resolution analysis: Prior to the changes to CPR 81, Practice Direction 81 set out the four grounds for striking out committal proceedings. In the post-October 2020 landscape, and with Practice Direction 81 revoked, questions have been asked about how the rules on strike out will apply to the new CPR 81. This case confirms that the court has an inherent power to strike out a committal application which it deems to be an abuse of process, and that the power is exercisable notwithstanding the absence of express reference to it in the CPR or in a Practice Direction. In this case, the application was struck out on the basis that the allegations of contempt could and should have been made in an earlier committal application. Failing to do so resulted in the ‘unjust harassment’ of Mr and Mrs Taylor, and was an abuse of process. Written by Alex West, barrister, at Albion Chambers, Bristol.

Dispute Resolution analysis: Mr Xu had stolen highly valuable confidential information from his employer, Corbiere Ltd, relating to investment strategies which allowed computerised buying and selling of stocks and shares without human involvement. Despite a court order for the return of the information, Mr Xu failed to return what he had taken. Following committal proceedings Mr Xu had been sentenced to 13 months’ immediate imprisonment made up of one month as a punitive element and 12 months as a coercive element. On appeal Mr Xu argued it was wrong of the Divisional Court to make a coercive order. The Court of Appeal unanimously rejected the appeal, holding there were valid grounds for making a coercive order on the facts of the case. Written by Alexander West, barrister at Albion Chambers, Bristol.

“Content”, in relation to a communication and a telecommunications operator, telecommunications service or telecommunication system, means any element of the communication, or any data attached to or logically associated with the communication, which reveals anything of what might reasonably be considered to be the meaning (if any) of the communication, but— (a) any meaning arising from the fact of the communication or from any data relating to the transmission of the communication is to be disregarded, and (b) anything which is systems data is not content.