header-logo header-logo

Contempt of court—Committal—Family proceeding

29 September 2011
Issue: 7483 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council v Watson and another [2011] EWHC 2376 (Fam), [2011] All ER (D) 89 (Sep)

Family Division, Sir Nicholas Wall P, 22 August 2011

In ordering the defendant’s committal, the High Court has reiterated the factors necessary for a finding of contempt of court.

The underlying action concerned care proceedings instituted by the local authority in relation to a child (X), aged seven. The local authority shared parental responsibility for the child with her parents, pursuant to s 33 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989). In February 2011, the High Court imposed a standard reporting restriction order, prohibiting the publication of certain information relating to X.

The defendant (W) described herself as the chief executive officer of an organisation called “Discoveries International Ltd” and a “private case investigator”. She had no legal qualification. She was named in the reporting restriction order along with H, the child’s mother. After the service of the order on her, she returned the documents with remarks scribbled across them, such as “void”, “no jurisdiction”, “contempt

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll