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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll