Clare recently acted for the Defendants in a case where the court dismissed an application for contempt of court, highlighting critical procedural requirements in civil contempt proceedings.

The Plaintiffs alleged that two Defendants had failed to comply with a discovery order requiring production of bank documents and had knowingly made false statements in their affidavits of compliance. The underlying dispute arose from a dissolved law firm partnership, with the parties seeking bank records of joint accounts dating back to 2010.

The court dismissed the application on two independent grounds:

1. Procedural defect: the original discovery order lacked the mandatory penal notice required under O.45 of the Rules of High Court. Leave to commence committal proceedings was granted before any breach of the amended order (with penal notice) arose. This defect was fatal and rendered the application fail on this ground alone.

2. Oppressive application: the alleged non-compliance was trivial. The Defendants had made efforts to obtain documents from the bank, and the Plaintiffs ultimately obtained the records directly from the bank. The Plaintiffs also failed to consider reasonable alternatives before taking out its application for committal. The court found the committal proceedings “plainly excessive and oppressive” in these circumstances.

Judgment is available here.

Click here for more details about Clare.

---

鄧懿恩大律師最近代表被告處理一宗案件，法院在該案中駁回了一項藐視法庭的申請，此案突顯民事藐視法庭程序中若干關鍵的程序性要求。

原告指稱兩名被告未有遵從一項關於文件披露的法庭命令，該命令要求被告提交銀行文件，並指被告在其合規宣誓書中蓄意作出虛假陳述。相關的基礎爭議源於一間已解散的律師行合夥關係，雙方尋求追索自 2010 年起的聯名銀行帳戶紀錄。

法院基於兩項各自獨立的理由駁回該申請：

1. 程序缺失：原有的文件披露命令並未載有《高等法院規則》第 45 條所規定的強制性刑罰告示（penal notice）。法院在尚未出現任何違反已修訂（並附有刑罰告示）命令的情況下，便批准展開拘押程序的許可。此項程序缺陷屬致命缺陷，單憑此一理由已足以令該申請失敗。

2. 申請具壓迫性：原告所指的不合規情況屬瑣碎性質。被告已嘗試向銀行索取有關文件，而原告最終亦直接從銀行取得相關紀錄。此外，原告在提出拘押申請前，未有考慮其他合理替代方案。法院在此情況下裁定，有關拘押程序「明顯過度且具壓迫性」。

按此瀏覽判決書。

按此以了解更多關於鄧大律師。