Event and Time
Event Description
On 8 December 2020, a ruling was issued concerning a plaintiff's application to punish a defendant for contempt of court, following breaches of court orders relating to access to the plaintiff’s bank account.
Application and Claims
The application was brought under Rules 66.05 and 75.05 of the County Court Civil Procedure Rules 2018. The plaintiff alleged that:
- The defendant had knowledge of the court orders.
- The defendant accessed the plaintiff’s bank account multiple times and retained the plaintiff’s bank statements.
A hearing was set for 15 February 2021 to discuss whether a conviction should be recorded, alongside penalties and costs.
Judicial Decisions
The judge initially determined that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of contempt due to:
- Knowledge of the orders by the defendant.
- Breach of said orders through unauthorized access and retention of bank statements.
However, the judge later declined to impose a conviction, opting instead to require the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
Plaintiff's Arguments
- The defendant knowingly breached court orders.
- The breaches were deliberate acts of contempt.
- A conviction should be recorded due to the seriousness of the breach.
Defendant's Contentions
- The defendant argued that the breaches were accidental or inadvertent, suggesting no intention to defy the orders.
- Provided that:
- His affidavits explained the breaches as not intentional. - The voluntary disclosure of the breaches to the plaintiff’s solicitors was inconsistent with deliberate contempt. - He had no prior convictions for contempt. - Other actions taken post-breach indicated a lack of defiance.