Graham v Robert Younger Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 26 January 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 7. |
| Date | 26 January 1955 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
HIGH COURT.
Lord Justice-Clerk. Lord Mackintosh. Lord Birnam.
Administration of Justice—Contempt of Court—Breach of undertaking given to Court—Whether contempt.
Jurisdiction—Review—Suspension—Contempt of Court in civil proceedings—Committal to prison by Sheriff—Competency of appeal to High Court.
In a petition for the sequestration of the estate of a partner in a firm which owned a public-house business, a judicial factor was appointed for the interim preservation of his estate. When the partner continued to interfere in the management of the licensed premises, the petitioning creditors applied by minute for his apprehension as being in contempt of Court, and, in the proceedings which followed, a solicitor on his behalf gave an undertaking that he would cease to interfere. Thereafter, the minute having been dismissed, the partner again interfered in the management of the premises and was sentenced by the Sheriff-substitute to a period of imprisonment for contempt of Court. In a bill of suspension and liberation, presented to the High Court, he contended on various grounds that he had not been guilty of contempt of Court.
Held that the Sheriff-substitute was entitled to treat the breach of a solemnly given undertaking as contempt of Court.
Observed that the jurisdiction of the High Court of Justiciary to entertain the appeal had not been challenged, and that the competency of doing so appeared to be affirmed by MacLeod v. Speirs, (1884) 5 Coup. 387, 11 R. (J.) 26.
Thomas Joseph Graham presented a bill of suspension and liberation to the High Court of Justiciary, craving, inter alia, the suspension of a pretended conviction and sentence, dated 20th December 1954, whereby, in the course of sequestration proceedings in the Sheriff Court at Glasgow at the instance of Robert Younger, Limited, the Sheriff-substitute (N. M. L. Walker) had found him guilty of contempt of Court and sentenced him to six weeks' imprisonment.
The circumstances are summarised in the rubric and are fully narrated in the opening paragraphs of the Lord Justice-Clerk's opinion.
The complainer pleaded, inter alia:—"(1) The minutes in answer to which the complainer appeared on 1st and 20th December 1954 being irrelevant in respect that the interlocutor referred to in the said minutes did not make any reference to the property or business carried on at 124 Crown Street, Glasgow, no contempt of Court had been committed by the complainer. (2) The complainer's actings complained of not being in breach of any order of Court or any current undertaking given to the Court by him or on his behalf, he could not be guilty of contempt of Court."
The respondents (Robert Younger, Limited) pleaded, inter alia:—"(1) The complainer's averments being irrelevant and insufficient in law to support the prayer of the bill, the bill of suspension should be refused."
Interim liberation was granted on 23rd December 1954, and the case was heard before the High Court of Justiciary on 21st January 1955.
At advising on 26th January 1955,—
LORD JUSTICE-CLERK (Thomson).—In November 1954 the respondents presented a petition in the Sheriff Court of Lanarkshire for sequestration of the estates of the complainer. The first order was pronounced on 25th November and on the same day an interlocutor was pronounced appointing James Kyles as judicial factor ad interimon the complainer's estates. One...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robertson and Gough v HM Advocate
...v NetherlandsHRC (1976) 1 EHRR 647 Findlay v UKHRC (1997) 24 EHRR 221 Gillies v McCloryUNK 1994 SCCR 886 Graham v Robert Younger LtdSC 1955 JC 28; 1955 SLT 250 Green v SmithSC 1988 JC 29; 1988 SLT 175 Hall v Associated Newspapers LtdSC 1979 JC 1; 1978 SLT 241 Hamilton v AndersonUNK (1858) 2......
-
Reclaiming Motion In Petition Of Scott Davidson For Judicial Review Of A Decision To Continue To Detain The Prisoner In Inhuman And Degrading Prison C V.
...because it is not a coercive order. That submission is plainly wrong and contrary to the authority of Graham v. Robert Younger Limited 1955 J.C. 28. In that case it was argued that a breach of an undertaking did not amount to contempt of court. In dealing with that matter at page 32 Lord Ju......
-
Stewart Robertson+stephen Gough V. Her Majesty's Advocate
...of a court order or of an undertaking given in foro and is punishable primarily for coercive reasons (eg Graham v Robert Younger Ltd, 1955 JC 28); nor with contempt committed outside the court, nor with contraventions of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. [34] We are concerned only with contem......
-
William Beggs (fe) For Judicial Review Of Decisions And Acts Etc
...[1995] 1 AC 456; [1994] 3 WLR 1249; [1995] 1 All ER 135 Fairclough v Manchester Ship Canal Co [1897] WN 7 Graham v Robert Younger LtdSC 1955 JC 28; 1955 SLT 250 Heatons Transport (St Helens) Ltd v Transport and General Workers UnionELRWLRUNK [1973] AC 15; [1972] 3 WLR 431; [1972] 3 All ER 1......