Isbilen vTurk & Ors

Under CPR 81.6, the court’s own-initiative power to commence contempt proceedings is exceptional. It is generally engaged where contempt appears clear, urgent and imperative, and immediate action is required. The court must apply the overriding objective and proportionality. Proceedings should ordinarily concern serious, deliberate and wilful breaches, pursue compliance, have a real prospect of success and involve conduct sufficiently grave to justify a serious penalty. The rule is not a preliminary or gateway case-management step. Issuing a summons starts contempt proceedings and should occur only where doing so is consistent with the overriding objective.

The claimant sought continuation of worldwide freezing, proprietary injunction, disclosure and passport orders made without notice by Miles J on 3 March 2021. She also sought cross-examination of the first defendant on his disclosure and raised whether the court should act under CPR 81.6 because of alleged non-compliance.

The first defendant accepted some initial failures, apologised, made further disclosure and consented to cross-examination subject to safeguards. The central issue was whether the court should commence contempt proceedings of its own initiative by issuing a summons under CPR 81.6(3).

1. Nature of CPR 81.6. Although CPR 81.1 preserves the substantive contempt jurisdiction, CPR 81.6 requires the court to consider whether to proceed where it considers that contempt may have been committed. If it decides to proceed, CPR 81.6(3) requires a summons. That is the commencement of contempt proceedings, not a neutral gateway or informal directions step.
2. Threshold and hierarchy. The court is generally the least appropriate applicant in civil contempt proceedings. It should act of its own volition only exceptionally, where the contempt is clear, urgent and imperative. A mandatory-order contempt also requires ability to comply coupled with a deliberate and wilful refusal.
3. Proportionality. The court must apply the overriding objective. Contempt proceedings should ordinarily concern serious rather than technical breaches, pursue compliance with the order, have a real prospect of success and involve conduct sufficiently grave to justify a serious penalty. The court should guard against satellite litigation and disproportionate use of judicial and party resources.
4. Disposition. The first defendant’s initial failures, considered in their procedural context, did not justify issuing a summons. He had acknowledged and sought to rectify them, the litigation was at an early stage, and cross-examination had been agreed. Issuing a summons would not accord with the overriding objective. The court declined to commence proceedings under CPR 81.6(3).

First-instance decision. The judgment records that Miles J made the without-notice orders on 3 March 2021 and delivered the 3 March Judgment. This court considered the return hearing and refused to commence contempt proceedings under CPR 81.6(3).