Contempt of court

Great Future International and others v Sealand Housing Corporation and others ChD TLR 1 March

In proceedings for civil contempt based on an alleged breach of a freezing injunction restraining dealings with assets below a certain financial minimum, the burden of showing remaining assets in excess of the minimum lies with the alleged contemnor, who has to discharge only an evidential and not a legal burden of proof. He may rely on privilege against self-incrimination and is therefore not a compellable witness. If he chooses to give evidence, the court may permit cross-examination limited to the alleged contempt. If the alleged contemnor adduces evidence but declines to submit to cross-examination, the court might attach very little weight to that evidence. The alleged contemnor cannot be made to answer questions at an interim stage, the answers to which might expose him to an application for committal for contempt.