1. On the supposed distinction between civil and criminal contempt see Miller, Contempt of Court, pp 7–19; Arlidge and Eady, The Law of Contempt, pp 46–51; Borrie and Lowe's Law of Contempt, 2nd edn, p 2.

2. In Heaton's Transport v TGWU [1972] ICR 285 at 343, Lord Denning said it was of a criminal character, and many of the safeguards in criminal contempt (such as a strict standard of proof) equally applied.

3. Arlidge and Eady, Law of Contempt, p 49.

4. eg Austin Rover v AUEW [1985] IRLR 162 where no penalty was imposed.

5. For example in relation to the issue whether the court may proceed for contempt of its own motion, for which see below.

6. [1964] Ch 195.

7. [1972] ICR 285 at 297.

8. The concept of the public interest is further discussed below, in relation to the ‘own motion’ problem.

9. [1984] IRLR 350.

10. For example the injunction taken out by the National Coal Board against the NUM in 1984 was never enforced. Proceedings for contempt were begun but then abandoned: Financial Times, 15 and 20 March 1985.

11. Clarke v Chadburn [1984) IRLR 350 at 353.

12. Jennison u Baker [1972] 2 QB 52 at 61 per Salmon LJ.

13. Cmnd 5794, para 176.

14. Phonographic Performance Ltd v Amusement Caterers (Peckham) Ltd [1964] Ch 195 at 198.

15. Cmnd 5794, para 171.

16. .6. (1974] AC 273 at 308.

17. See also Home Office v Harman [1983] AC 280 at 310 per Lord Scarman; Yianni u Yianni [1966] 1 WLR 120 at 124 per Cross J. In Balogh v St Albans Crown Court [1975] 1 QB 73 at 85, Lord Denning thought that a judge could only act of his own motion when it is urgent and imperative to act immediately.

18. RSC Ord 52, r 1 and notes thereto.

19. [1950] 1 All ER 495.

20. [1973] ICR 620, notrd hy Wedderburn (1974) 37 MLR 187

21. [1897] 1 Ch 545 at 559.

22. See also Wedderburn (1974) 37 MLR 187 where it is argued that the court considered the matter to be one of criminal contempt, where the court could act of its own motion anyway. But see Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417 at 458 where Lord Atkinson took a contrary view.

23. Yianni v Yianni [1966] 1 WLR 120 is actually against the proposition (‘the plaintiff… could agree with the defendant that he need not obey the order’, at 124).

24. [1972] 2 QB 52. See also Phonographic Performance Ltd v Amusement Caterers [1964] Ch 195.

25. The defendant had been ordered not to evict tenants, but they had left after further efforts by the defendant to evict them.

56. In Churchman v Shop Stewards Committee [1972] ICR 222 at 229, Lord Denning said ‘I do not say that the court was not entitled to act as it did. It may be that in some circumstances the court may be entitled, on sufficient information being brought before it, to act on its own initiative in sending a contemnor to prison’. See also Heaton's Transport u TGWU [1972] ICR 285 at 298(NIRC).

27. Except in cases involving children.

28. For a Canadian case where such a power was adopted see Poje v A-G of British Columbia [1953] 2 DLR 785.

29. Con-Mech v AUEW [1973] ICR 620.

30. Cmnd 5794, para 171.

31. [1973] QB 710 at 738 (CA).

32. [1984] IRLR 350 at 353.

33. ‘The A-G did intervene in a sense in the coal dispute when he guaranteed the costs of the sequestrators.

34. [1974] AC 273, cspecially at 326 per Lord Cross. Lord Cross thought that the role of the A-G would be that of amicus curiae bringing the breach to the notice of the court. But this would not be the usual view. See Edwards, The Attorney General, Politics and the Public Interest, pp 153–8, 165–8.

35. Because of the quasi-criminal character of the sanctions the standards of proof are strict, the test being one of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. See Re Bramblevale [1970] 1 Ch 128; Churchmanu v Shop Stewards Committee [1972] ICR 222; Express and Star v NGA [1985] IRLR 455.

36. [1964] Ch 195.

37. [1973] ICR 620. See also Goad v AUEW [1973] ICR 108.

38. [1973] ICR 1 at 11.

39. A-Gu v Times Newspapers [1974] AC 273 at 312 per Lord Diplock.

40. [1973] ICR 1.

41. See also Austin Rover v AUJEW [1985] IRLR 163 where no penalty was imposed, but it is not clear from the report whether any order for costs was made.

42. See also Supreme Court Act 1981, s 140 to the same effect.

43. See the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, ss 31 and 32, as amended, and the Magistrates Courts Act 1980, s 76; Attachment of Earnings Act 1971, s 1.

44. [1982] IRLR 465.

45. The Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, s 31 requires the period of imprisonment on default to be specified at the time the fine is imposed.

46. The Queen's Remembrancer is the senior master of the Queen's Bench Division: Supreme Court Act 1981, s 89(4). See also RSC Ord 63, r 1. The Queen's Remembrancer Act 1859 does not bear on the issue.

47. Contempt of court Act 1981, s 16(2); Supreme Court Act 1981, s 140(2) and (4).

48. RSC Ord 45 and Ord 47.

49. The Times, 10 November 1984.

50. RSC Ord 45 and Ord 49.

51. The Times, 12 December 1984.

52. Charging Orders Act 1979; RSC Ord 50. The fine must be of at least £2,000.

53. RSC Ord 45 and Ord 51. This remedy has been used in relation to a trade union but not for the purpose of collecting a fine: Bourne v Colodense [1985] ICR 291.

54. Equitable execution would not usually be granted except where legal execution is unavailable.

55. The South Wales Miners paid some of their employees six months in advance in anticipation of sequestration.

56. However the likely costs of sequestration are an element taken into account in deciding the level of the fine: Con-Mech v AUEW [1973] ICR 620 at 632.

57. The costs to the NUM of the receivership and the sequestration in 1984 was almost £1m — over 10% of their assets.

58. See Supreme Court Practice, Pt 2, Appendix A, Form 67.

59. Unless specified by the court there are no exclusions, and those funds which are exempted from being recovered to pay damages (such as provident funds: Employment Act 1982, s 17) can nevertheless be taken by the sequestrators; Eckman v Midland Bank [1973] ICR 71. In the Con- Mech case part of the political fund was taken. But certain funds can be excluded by order of the court; see for example Read v NUM (S. Wales) [1985] IRLR 67.

60. [1973] ICR 620.

61. [1973] ICR 42.

62. Read Transport v NUM (S. Wales) (1985) Times, 13 and 19 March.

63. [1973] ICR 42.

64. [1985] IRLR 65 at 71. See also Heatons v TGWU [1972] ICR 285 at 299; Australian Consolidated Press Ltd v Morgan (1965) 39 ALJR 32 at 40.

65. Con-Mech v AUEW [1973] 620.

66. RSC Ord 45, rr 5 and 7 which relate the sequestration to the failure to obey the order, not the failure to pay the fine.

67. RSC Ord 45, r 5.

68. Heaton's Tramport v TGWU [1972] ICR 285 at 402 per Lord Wilberforce.

69. Stancomb v Trowbridge UDC [1910] 2 Ch 190 per Warrington J; Steiner Products v Willy Steiner [1966] 1 WLR 986; Knight v Clifton [1971] Ch 700. A contrary view in Worthington v Ad-Lib Club [1965] 1 Ch 236 that the act must be deliberate was not accepted in Heatons.

70. Re Mileage Conference Group of the tyre Manufacturers Conference Agreement [1966] 1 WLR 1137.

71. Re Pollard [1903] 2 KB 41 at 48 per Romer LJ.

72. Accordingly the sequestrators owe a duty of care to the defendant whose property they hold: IRC v Hoogstraten [1984] 3 All ER 25.

73. Bucknell v Bucknell [1969] 2 All ER 998; Eckman v Midland Bunk [1973] ICR 71. If the third party insists upon a court order he may be required to pay the costs of the application.

74. [1973] ICR 71.

75. This power is based on Seaward v Paterson [1897] 1 Ch 545 where it was held that even those who were not subject to the injunction but were aware of it could be arraigned for contempt. See also Acrow v Rex Chainbeft [1971] 3 All ER 1175; Thorne RDC v Bunting [1972] 3 All ER 657; Z Ltd v A-Z Ltd [1982] 2 WLR 288. The point was also forcefully made by Nicholls J in Taylor v NUM (1985) Times, 20 November, where he warned professional advisers who assist in causing the order to be broken, and he particularly warned solicitors of their duty to the court.

76. Although the unions were aware of the problem, for example the CPSA refused to pay a £10,000 printing bill on behalf of the NUM after advice that they would be in contempt if they did so.

77. However such institutions could be held liable to the union if they assist the trustee in avoiding the sequestration or receivership, thereby imposing additional costs on the union: such an action has been raised, see The Times, 20 September 1985.

78. However they can require a person who has information on the whereabouts of the funds to disclose that information even if he holds no funds of the contemnor: Messenger Newspapers v NGA [1984] ICR 345.

79. There is no authority to the effect that a sequestrator can impugn a transaction made before the writ of sequestration is issued, even if done in anticipation of that order, although Law of Property Act 1925, s 172 may be wide enough to apply.

80. The Times, 10 November 1984. This situation continued for some time and eventually the government guaranteed the sequestrator's costs as the amounts gathered were not by then sufficient to cover their costs. This was a highly controversial intervention, for it implied that the NUM might have succeeded in avoiding the effects of sequestration but for state intervention.

81. In countries where the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial matters is in force, a court will only refuse a judgment if it is contrary to public policy to recognise it. It is thought this has narrowed the grounds of refusal, but its application in any given state is uncertain.

84. [1893] AC 150 at 157, (italics in original).

83. Cf Eckman v Midland Bank [1973] ICR 71 at 74 where it was said that although the plaintiff must obtain the writ, thereafter the sequestrators are officers of the court.

84. Which permits the court to appoint a receiver whenever it is just and convenient to do so.

85. [1985] ICR 203, (exparte); Clarke v Heathfield (No 2) [1985] ICR 606 (inter parfes).

86. It may be for this reason that the receivership in Clarke v Heathfield [1985] ICR 203 was extended to all the assets of the union, even though ‘what is wanted is control over the assets in one bank’.

87. The Times, 19 June and 2 July 1985; Irish Times, 19 June 1985.

88. Sir John Donaldson in Howitt Transport v TGWU [1973] ICR 1.

89. Churchman v Joint Shop Stewards Committee [1972] ICR 222; Cunard Steamship v Neary (1960) Times, 23 August and 4 October. Anderman and Davies, ‘Injunction Procedure in Labour Disputes’ (1973) 2 ILJ 213 and (1974) 3 ILJ 30. Sentences of imprisonment have been imposed in Canada for breach of injunctions: A-G of Quebec u Charbonneau (1974) 40 DLR 3d 65.

90. Read Transport v NUM [1985] IRLR 67. In the miner's case Arthur Scargill was lined £1,000 for contempt, which was eventually paid anonymously. Thr Guardian, 11 October 1984.

91. Powers of criminal Courts Act 1973, ss 31 and 32; Contempt of court Act 1971, s 16.

92. Express Newspapers u Mitchell [1982] IRLR 465; the defendant was fined £350 or one week's imprisonment on default.

93. ‘Purging’ is the traditional phrase, but in Read v NUM (S. Wales), (1985) Financial limes, 15 March, Scott J preferred the phrase ‘clearing contempt’.

94. Enfield Borough Council v Mahoney [1983] 2 All ER 901; see also Re Barrell Enterprises [1972] 3 All ER 631.

95. Con-Mech v AUEW [1973] ICR 620 at 625; Read Transport v NUM S. Wales), (1985) Financial Times, 15 March.

96. (1985) Financial Times, 15 March; the sequestration was discharged, subject to the withholding of £100,000 on account for costs.

97. Financial Times, 15 November 1985.

98. The lifting of sequestration order was much involved with the rescinding of the receivership. The latter could not be accomplished before the former, and other obstacles were that the court required the union to co-operate with the receiver, and also give an undertaking not to sue the Luxembourg bank which had handed money over to the receiver. This was because the receiver had given an indemnity to the bank against any action by the union. Financial Times, 21, 22, 23 October 1985.