Weavabel Group Limited v Lance Jamieson Christie

An undertaking to the court is equivalent to an injunction and may be enforced by committal. Its meaning and effect are construed strictly, having regard to the background and the mischief addressed. The claimant must prove deliberate commission of the relevant act, with the criminal standard of proof applying. Motive is irrelevant.

A defendant’s silence may support an inference on a factual issue, but cannot itself prove contempt. The burden remains on the claimant. A freely given undertaking settling litigation cannot ordinarily be resisted by re-opening issues, including truth or Convention arguments, which were available when the undertaking was given. Committal proceedings must nevertheless remain proportionate and pursue legitimate ends.

The claimant sought committal of the defendant for breach of an undertaking given in a consent order dated 15 November 2023. The undertaking prohibited derogatory comments about the claimant and specified members of the defendant’s family, subject to limited exceptions.

The claimant originally alleged 59 breaches. Following case management directions, 16 allegations were pursued. The defendant argued that the comments were not derogatory, that some were true, that the proceedings were abusive or disproportionate, and that enforcement would infringe his rights under Article 10 of the Convention. The central issues were the construction and enforceability of the undertaking, proof of deliberate breach, proportionality, and whether the individual comments were derogatory.

1. Applicable principles. An undertaking to the court is equivalent to an injunction and may be enforced by committal: Bishlawi v Minrealm. The claimant bears the burden of proving the breach to the criminal standard. The charges must be clear, the defendant has a right to silence, and procedural fairness is required: Navigator Equities v Deripaska [2021] EWCA Civ 1799. The undertaking must be clear and unambiguous, the defendant must have proper notice, and the breach must be clear.
2. The relevant question was whether the defendant deliberately committed the acts complained of. It was unnecessary to prove an intention to breach the undertaking or knowledge that the conduct constituted a breach. The defendant’s failure to give evidence could support an inference on the disputed issue of whether he intended to include linked documents, but the inference could not itself establish contempt.
3. The undertaking was freely given as part of a settlement and had to be enforced in accordance with the principle of finality. The defendant had voluntarily limited his freedom of expression in relation to specified family members, while remaining free to criticise the PBCC. His Article 10 arguments could not be used to reopen the compromise. In any event, enforcement was proportionate, having regard to the protection of others’ rights and the public interest in enforcing settlements: Mionis v Democratic Press [2017] EWCA Civ 1194.
4. The truth of a comment was irrelevant to whether it was derogatory under the undertaking. The contractual and consensual context distinguished the case from the state-imposed criminal restriction considered in Colombani v France. Allegations that family members were liars, perjurers, or had lodged false information were plainly derogatory. More qualified comments, including that a contention was not credible or that a subjective account was untrue, were not proved to the criminal standard in the particular instances identified.
5. The 5th, 6th, 14th, 18th, 20th, 23rd, 26th, 31st, 33rd, 34th, 38th, 47th and 59th contempts were proved. No finding was made on the 12th, 21st or 58th allegations. The judgment supplied does not state the penalty or any final committal order.