header-logo header-logo

16 November 2012
Issue: 7538 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Contempt of court

JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov and others [2012] EWCA Civ 1411, [2012] All ER (D) 66 (Nov)

The court did not lack jurisdiction, whether under s 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 or under its own inherent jurisdiction, to do what was just and convenient, and necessary, to protect its own orders and to give effect to the interests of justice. It was not beyond the powers of the court, under its contempt of court jurisdiction, to order the imprisonment of a litigant found to have been in contempt. That was the power that encroached on the liberty of the subject. It was a power held as part of the armoury of the court to ensure that justice could be done in civil litigation.

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

Harneys—Maggie Kwok & George Weston

Harneys—Maggie Kwok & George Weston

Harneys senior leadership appointments

Freeths—Keith Browne & Jim Jordan

Freeths—Keith Browne & Jim Jordan

Freeths strengthens London Construction and Engineering practice with two strategic senior hires

Anthony Collins—Laura Moss

Anthony Collins—Laura Moss

Anthony Collins announces strategic hire to deepen skills base in the social business sector

NEWS
Existing defamation law can respond to AI ‘hallucinations’, but allocating responsibility will prove harder where outputs reach users without human intervention
The High Court has upheld a rare successful serious-irregularity challenge after an arbitrator relied on an implied term neither party had advanced
Thirty years after The Future of Law shook a profession still using fax machines, its central forecast looks increasingly less like prophecy and more like description
More than 100 teams from the legal and financial services sectors competed in five sports at the 51st Law Society RFC Festival of Sport earlier this month
Part-time status need only be an effective cause of less favourable treatment, rather than the sole cause, the Supreme Court has held in Augustine v Data Cars
back-to-top-scroll