Adam Phones Ltd v Goldsdchmidt and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 July 1999 |
| Date | 09 July 1999 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
Before Mr Justice Jacob
Chancery Division
Practice - technical contempt of court - disproportionate response dismissed with costs
Especially since the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules (SI 1998 No 3132), before a party launched proceedings against an opponent seeking his committal for contempt of court, something more must be involved than a mere technicality.
An application which was a wholly disproportionate response to a trivial or blameless breach of a court order was likely to be dismissed with costs.
Mr Justice Jacob so held in the Chancery Division in dismissing with costs an application by the claimant, Adam Phones Ltd, which sought the committal to prison of the first defendant, Gideon Goldschmidt, on the ground of alleged contempt of court in breach of an order of Mr Justice Pumfrey made on March 5, 1999.
The second to fifth defendants were Oren Goldschmidt (Gideon's son); Rarewell Ltd; Digital House International Ltd and Park Lane Telecom Ltd.
Mr Mark Vanhegan for Adam; Mr Richard Arnold for the first three defendants; the other defendants were not represented.
MR JUSTICE JACOB said that Adam hired out mobile telephones; Gideon and Oren, together with their company Rarewell Ltd written software called HireManager; also, some special software for Adam, the copyright in which was in dispute.
In February 1999 Adam found out that those defendants had supplied the fourth and fifth defendants with HireManager, which would do the same job as Adam's own program.
On March 5, Adam mounted against the defendants ex parte applications for (a) injunctions restraining further use of HireManager, as infringing copyright in Adams' own program; and (b) an search and seizure order that the Goldschmidts forthwith hand over certain material to Adam.
Since the order was complex, requiring positive action in not altogether clear terms, it had been a mistake for it not to require the presence of a supervising solicitor; even the serving officer had made mistakes in explaining its effect.
In similar future cases, both Adam and the court should more carefully consider requiring a supervising solicitor to attend when orders approximating to full seizure, or requiring immediate positive action, were made.
Gideon had interpreted his obligation that Adam's solicitors were to receive copies of all of the relevant software and that the defendants were to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Public Joint Stock Company Vseukrainskyi Aktsionernyi Bank v SERGEY MAKSIMOV & others
...gravity to justify the imposition of a serious penalty, may lead to the applicant having to pay the respondent's costs: see Adam Phones v. Goldschmidt ( supra) per Jacob J at 495 to 6, applying Bhimji v. Chatwani [1991] 1 All ER 705. Jacob J concluded, by reference to that case: "Since that......
-
Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd v Karaha Bodas Co LLC and Others
...Despite Jacob J’s (as he then was) apparent sympathy with Irtelli in the English High Court decision of Adam Phones Ltd v Goldschmidt [1999] 4 All ER 486 at 494, we are of the view that the traditional (and strict) approach should be adopted. This is not merely due to the overwhelming weigh......
-
Kea Investments Ltd v Eric John Watson and Others
...undertaking, but only that he intended the act or omission in question, and knew the facts which made it a breach of the order: see Adam Phones v. Goldschmidt [1999] 4 All ER 486 at 492j to 494j.” 27 I accept that the wilfulness of the breach is, as Mr Grant went on to say, vitally relevan......
-
Integral Petroleum SA v Petrogat Fze
...undertaking, but only that he intended the act or omission in question, and knew the facts which made it a breach of the order: see Adam Phones v Goldschmidt [1999] 4 All ER 486 at 492j to 494j”. 31 Where the contempt alleged is the breach of a court order, the principles summarised by Mar......