QRT v JBE

A contempt application alleging breach of an injunction must identify, in a clear and concise chronological summary, the facts said to constitute the contempt. Referring merely to supporting evidence is insufficient. The alleged contemnor must be given enough information to understand the case to be met.

An injunction restricting use of hearing papers may regulate only the documents falling within its terms. Where the order restricts use of the claimant’s documents, it does not ordinarily restrict the defendant’s use of his own documents. An anonymity order does not itself prohibit identification unless the order expressly imposes that restriction.

The claimant and defendant had been in a personal relationship. The claimant obtained interim orders restraining disclosure of explicit material, anonymising the parties, restricting access to the court file and limiting use of hearing papers.

The claimant later commenced contempt proceedings, alleging that the defendant had disclosed a document exhibited to his own evidence, had used protected documents in related proceedings in Florida, and had revealed the claimant’s identity. The application notice referred to an affidavit rather than setting out the alleged facts in chronological form.

The court considered whether the application complied with CPR 81.4(2)(h), whether it had any real prospect of success, and whether the continuing injunction should be discharged.

1. The contempt application was dismissed. The application failed to comply with the mandatory requirement in CPR 81.4(2)(h) to provide a brief summary of the facts alleged to constitute contempt, set out numerically and chronologically. A reference to supporting evidence did not satisfy that requirement.
2. The application notice must contain a clear summary sufficient to enable the alleged contemnor to understand the case to be met. The court applied the approach reviewed in Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc & Anor [2020] EWHC 3536 (Comm), and the guidance in City of Westminster v Addbins Ltd & Ors [2012] EWHC 3716 (QB), applying Harmsworth v Harmsworth [1987] 1 WLR 1676.
3. Even assuming, in the claimant’s favour, that the defendant had disclosed document JBE11 after the injunction was granted, that conduct did not breach the injunction or the hearing-paper restrictions. The relevant provisions restricted use of the claimant’s documents and imposed no additional restriction on the defendant’s use of his own document.
4. The alleged disclosure of the claimant’s identity could not found contempt because the operative order contained no express restriction on identification. The identity restriction in the model order had not been included.
5. The court declined to discharge or vary the continuing injunction. Although the court retained jurisdiction to reconsider an injunction continued by consent, there was no material change of circumstances or other justification for intervention. An undertaking in identical terms would make no material practical difference.
6. The claimant’s application for indemnity costs was refused. Costs were ordered to be assessed on the standard basis, since the serious consequences arose substantially from the lawyers’ mistake.