header-logo header-logo

25 October 2013 / Nicholas Stewart KC , Max Cole
Issue: 7581 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Choose your weapon wisely

001_nlj_7581_ofc

Nicholas Stewart QC & Max Cole on the risks of contempt of court applications

Contempt of court comes in many forms, some more lively than others. A defendant who ate an incriminating telex during the execution of an Anton Piller search order was obviously guilty. Rather longer ago, it was unsurprisingly a contempt to draw a sword to strike a judge. On the other hand, applying some version of the sticks and stones principle, an Australian court held in 2000 that it was no contempt, by a barrister as it happened, to call a judge by the w-word. Not wise, though.

Civil contempt by an individual is punishable by prison and/or a fine. In the case of a company, its officers are liable to those same punishments and the company can be fined. The contemnor’s assets may also be placed in the hands of sequestrators—as with the National Union of Mineworkers in the bitter mid-1980s litigation. While it is called civil contempt, the applicant must meet the criminal standard of proof.

Motives

From

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll