Committal proceedings meaning

Andrew Scott KC of Blackstone Chambers, counsel for BHP Andrew Scott KC said the planned appeal poses the issue of whether seeking anti‑suit relief in a foreign court, linked to proceedings in England, could amount to criminal contempt. Scott told the Court of Appeal that no English authority indicates that it could. BHP has lodged an appeal against a decision by Judge Adam Constable. In June 2025, sitting in the High Court, he held that BHP must confront allegations that it attempted to impede the municipalities’ access to justice in England by supporting proceedings in Brazil’s highest court that might frustrate compensation claims. The municipalities argue that BHP is in contempt of court for agreeing to finance a claim initiated by Ibram, a Brazilian mining association, before the South American country’s Federal Supreme Court in 2024...

What are the practical implications of this case? The court emphasised that a committal application is not about any contempt in general, but whether the claimants have proved, to the criminal standard, the particular contempt specified in the application notice. Where no amended notice exists, yet the contempt argued in submissions departs from that notice, appellants are not entitled to advance that alternative case, consistent with the heightened standard of procedural fairness required in such proceedings (para [48]). The court also affirmed the lower court’s conclusion that, where satisfying the criminal standard properly hinges on expert evidence of foreign law, the absence of such expert material is fatal to the application (paras [51]; [58]). Finally, although the language deployed in an affidavit was excessive, within the setting of long-running, vituperative litigation this was insufficient to meet the requirements for indemnity costs. What was the background?...

In this issue Key DR developments Claims and remedies Cross-border disputes Injunctions Litigation Case management Civil appeals Scottish Dispute Resolution New content Dates for your diary Useful information LexTalk®Dispute Resolution: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Key DR developments Speeches Master of the Rolls delivers a speech that highlights the International Jurisdiction Taskforce to align digital asset laws The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary has released the speech by Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, delivered on 6 November 2025 at the 45th Anniversary of the Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary University of London. In that address, he set out the creation and remit of the International Jurisdiction Taskforce—an international body formed in July 2025 to foster alignment of private law systems for digital assets, digital finance and digital trade across multiple jurisdictions, including the UK, the United States of America, France, Singapore, Australia, Japan...

There is some overlap between the doctrine of res judicata and the Henderson abuse principle, discussed below. Note too that these concepts intersect with the procedural basis for striking out a claim as an abuse of the court’s process under CPR 3.4(2)(b); see below and Practice Note: Strike out for abuse of process (civil) (CPR 3.4(2)(b))—Abuse of process by second proceedings. What is res judicata? A res judicata is a determination made by a judge or tribunal with jurisdiction over the cause of action and the parties, which disposes, with finality, of the matter decided so that those bound by the judgment cannot re-litigate it, save on appeal. Those bound by the ruling remain so unless and until altered on appeal. For further guidance on the purpose of, and when you can establish, a res judicata, see Practice Notes: The doctrine of res judicata Key requirements to establish a res judicata What is Henderson abuse? In a legal context,...

This Practice Note explains when permission is needed to bring contempt proceedings under CPR 81 (also known as ‘committal proceedings’), together with the manner and forum in which any application for permission should be made. It also considers the proper forum for contempt proceedings more broadly. Types of case requiring permission CPR 81.3(5) states that leave to pursue contempt is only necessary in two categories: interference with the due administration of justice, save in relation to ongoing High Court or County Court proceedings; and an allegation that a person knowingly made a false statement in any affidavit, affirmation or other document verified by a statement of truth, or in a disclosure statement For more information on these types of contempt, see: and False statements. CPR 81.3 specifies the court to which the permission application should be directed, where permission is required—see: Permission and forum. Permission and forum Contempt application concerning knowingly making a false statement, etc, relating to existing...

ARCHIVED: This tracker is archived and no longer updated. For an overview of Court of Protection cases from 2025 onwards, see: Court of Protection—table of cases. P, Re (Property & Affairs Deputyship: Jurisdiction) [2024] EWCOP 77 (T2) Court of Protection determines it has jurisdiction to consider whether P’s mother should continue as property and affairs deputy The proceedings related to P, an adult who sustained a brain injury in an accident and had a substantial personal injury claim. His mother had been appointed by the Court of Protection as his property and affairs deputy, and the present decision addressed an application seeking to revoke that appointment. The litigation had been protracted. Earlier, the court permitted ‘closed material’ to be withheld from P’s parents to facilitate capacity assessments; for a summary of that ruling, see here. Despite that step, neither the Official Solicitor nor the court gained clarity about P’s condition or even his location. It was reported that P was now residing in Italy. HHJ Burrows concluded that...

If a monetary order in family proceedings remains unpaid, the judgment creditor may, in those circumstances, seek a judgment summons by applying to the court for enforcement. The process is regulated by the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, Pt 33, and if the court is persuaded that the debtor has defaulted on a debt and has, or has had since the order, the means to discharge the unpaid amount yet has refused or failed to do so, it may order the debtor’s committal to prison. This sanction applies where default relates to the ordered sum and endures despite the debtor’s means...