Yianni v Yianni
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1966 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
Contempt of Court - Civil contempt - Subpoena - Motion for committal for alleged breach of injunction - Material witness not called - Whether judge power to issue subpoena or subpoena duces tecum without consent of parties. - Practice - Subpoena ad testificandum - Issue by judge without consent of parties - Committal for civil contempt, motion for.
On September 14, 1965, the plaintiff issued a writ claiming (1) an account of rents collected by the defendant from the tenants of premises, which the plaintiff claimed she owned, and payment to her of the sum so found to be due, and (2) an injunction to restrain the defendant from collecting further rents, or otherwise from acting in the management of the premises. On September 15, the plaintiff obtained an ex parte injunction in the terms sought by her. The writ, the interim injunction and the affidavits in support were served on September 21 on solicitors then acting for the defendant, but who later ceased so to act. The defendant admitted in evidence that he had been told on September 18, by a tenant of the premises or by the tenant's wife, that the injunction had been made.
On October 12 the plaintiff issued a motion for committal to prison of the defendant in respect of alleged breaches of the injunction, notwithstanding that he had had notice thereof, committed on September 23 and on other days thereafter.
In an affidavit in support of the motion, sworn by one P., it was stated by the deponent that he had been informed by one M., a tenant of the premises, that he (M.) had paid rent to the defendant, inter alia, on September 23.
During the course of the hearing the court was informed that M. had been asked by the plaintiff if he would give evidence on affidavit, but that he had refused to do so. No subpoena was served on M. by the plaintiff to attend and give evidence. The defendant gave evidence denying that he had collected rents in breach of the injunction after knowing of it.
In these circumstances:—
Held, that the rule of procedure that the judge cannot, or at least should not, call any evidence himself independently of the parties, unless or until the parties consent or do not object, did not apply to a committal motion for breach of an order of court, because the matter was of a quasi-criminal character, and, accordingly, the court had power, in order to find out the truth of the matter, to issue a subpoena of its own motion.
MOTION.
On September 14, 1965, the plaintiff, Miss Kyriacou Yianni, issued a writ claiming (1) an account of moneys collected by the defendant, Antonis Yianni, from the plaintiff's tenants, and payment of the amount found due to her upon the taking of such an account, and (2) an injunction restraining the defendant, whether by his servants or agents or otherwise from collecting rent from tenants of premises situate in and known as 66, Hilldrop Crescent, Hollo way, London, or otherwise from engaging in the management of the premises or any part thereof. The plaintiff claimed that she owned the house, having bought it some years previously. On September 15, 1965, the plaintiff obtained, ex parte, from Waller J., sitting in the vacation court, an interim injunction restraining the defendant until after Wednesday, September 22, 1965, or until further order in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cave Projects Ltd v Kelly
...that the cause of action had accrued in 2008. 1 As to oral evidence of Mr Kelly and the finding of untruthfulness, reference is made to Yianni v Yianni [1966] 1 WLR 120 as authority for the principle that the High Court has power to call a witness in matters relating to contempt and it is ......
- Comet Products U.K. Ltd v Hawkex Plastics Ltd
-
Margaret Gardner v Rivington Gardner
...that must be met by the Applicant. This therefore means that the standard of proof is that of proof beyond any reasonable doubt. See: Yianni v Yianni [1966] 1 W.L.R. 120; Re Bramblevale Ltd., [1970] 1 Ch. 128, esp. at page 137 and Comet Products (U.K.) Ltd.v Hawkex Plastics Ltd. [1971] 2 ......
-
Yashwant Dahyabhai Patel v Girish Dahyabhai Patel and Others
...be sent to prison. The rules as to criminal charges have always been applied to such a proceeding. I see that Cross J. in the case of Yianni v. Yianni [1966] 1 WLR 120 so decided; and furthermore we ourselves in this court in In re Bramblevale Ltd. [1970] Ch 128, 137, said that it must he p......
-
Standards of Proof in Civil Litigation
...type of proceeding. See generally C.J. Miller, Contempt of Court 2nd ed (Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1989) 2–3, 25–45.113 Yianni vYianni [1966] 1 WLR 120; In re Bramblevale Ltd [1970] 1 Ch 128; Dean vDean [1987] 1FLR 517.March 1999] Standards of Proof in Civil LitigationßThe Modern Law Review L......
-
Table of Cases
...105…………………………………….......………….1667 Yesufu. v. Gbadamosi (1993) 6 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 299) 363 ………………………………........……1489 Yianni v. Yianni (1966) 1 All E.R. 231 ………………………………………………......................1443 Yongbish & Anor. v. Bulus & Anor. (1997) 2 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 489) 621…………........… 1653, 1795 Yon......