Warwick Corporation v Russell

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date1964
CourtChancery Division
[CHANCERY DIVISION.] WARWICK CORPORATION v. RUSSELL [1964 W. No. 1121.] 1964 April 7. Buckley J.

Contempt of Court - Committal order - Ex parte motion - Injunction - Motion to commit for breach - Circumstances in which court should order committal on ex parte application.

The respondent broke into land belonging to the Warwick Corporation on April 5, 1964, and set up tents intending to give circus performances thereon on April 6 and 7. On April 6 Nield J., in the vacation court, granted the corporation an injunction restraining the respondent from remaining on their land and from carrying on the business of a circus on it. The injunction was fully brought to the notice of the respondent on the same day and he was warned that if he disobeyed the injunction he ran the risk of being committed to prison for contempt of court. In the evening of April 6 he held a performance of his circus on the corporation land. He refused to give the corporation an assurance that he would not hold a further performance on it and it appeared that he intended to do so. On April 7, the respondent was formally served with a copy of the injunction, and on the same day the corporation moved ex parte for a committal order:—

Held, that although an order for committal normally would not be made ex parte, the court had jurisdiction to make such an order if the circumstances warranted it; and that having regard to the circumstances, the gravity of the breach, and the fact that unless the respondent were now checked he would achieve his object, this was a proper case in which to make the order.

MOTION EX PARTE.

In November, 1964, the Warwick Corporation granted a lease to the respondent, Joe Russell, otherwise William Mack, of certain land for the purpose of mounting circus performances there on April 27 and 28, 1964. The corporation subsequently let other land to another circus proprietor to enable him to give performances on that other land on April 8 and 9. The respondent took exception to that and advanced the date of his two performances which he intended to give, and during the week preceding the hearing of the motion he advertised in Warwick that the performances would take place on April 6 and 7. The corporation protested by letter and telegram but received no reply from the respondent apart from one letter, dated April 5, in which he complained of a breach of the contract with him. On April 5 the respondent broke into the corporation's land and brought in vehicles and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Balogh v St. Albans Crown Court
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 4 July 1974
    ...at page 319 by Lord Diplock; page 333 by Lord Cross of Chelsea: and such a motion can, in an urgent case, be made ex parte, see Warwick Corporation v. Russell (1964) 1 W.L.R. 613. All the cases cited in the notes to Order 52 Rule 5 are of motions by some one ex parte. None of them tells us ......
  • Re Bolton
    • Cayman Islands
    • Court of Appeal (Cayman Islands)
    • 23 January 2004
    ...and at p. 324 by Lord Cross of Chelsea: and such a motion can, in an urgent case, be made ex parte: see Warwick Corporation v. Russell [1964] 1 W.L.R. 613. All the cases cited in the notes to Ord. 52, r.5, are of motions by some one ex parte. None of them tells us when the High Court can ma......
  • Bassarath et Al v Ag of Trinidad and Tobago
    • Trinidad & Tobago
    • High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
    • 14 July 1995
    ...and at p.3224 by Lord Cross of Chelsea: and such a motion can, in an urgent case, be made ex parte: see Warwick Corporation v. Russell [1964] 1 W.L.R. 613. All the cases cited in the notes to Ord. 52, r.5, are of motions by someone ex parte. None of them tells us when the High Court can mak......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT