- Cited — Mark Gary Coates v Janice Elizabeth Turner & Anor 2023-12-12
“…[1971] 2 QB 67, Arlidge, Eady & Smith on Contempt, 5th ed. at para. 15-55, and…”
- Cited — McKay v The All England Lawn Tennis Club (Championships) Ltd & Ors 2020-06-02
“…d. Like the defendant in a criminal trial, a person accused of contempt has the right to remain silent: see Comet Products UK Limited v Hawkex Plastics Limited [1971] 2 QB 67 (CA). It is the duty of the court to ensure that the accused person is made aware of that right, and also of the risk that adverse inferences may be drawn from…”
- Distinguished — Andreewitch v Moutreuil 2020-03-17
“…tempt to remain silent, which carries with it the absolute right not to go into the witness box, was established in Comet Products UK Ltd v Hawkex Plastics Ltd [1971] 2 QB 67, where this court held that such a person is not a compellable witness. This right is to be distinguished both from the privilege against self-incrimination an…”
- Cited — Andreewitch v Moutreuil 2020-03-17
“…"40 A person accused of contempt, like the defendant in a criminal trial, has the right to remain silent: see Comet Products UK Ltd v Hawkex Plastics Ltd [1971] 2 QB 67. It is the duty of the court to ensure that the accused person is made aware of that right and also of the risk that adverse inferences may be drawn from his s…”
- Distinguished — Douherty v The Chief Constable of Essex Police 2019-01-30
“…tempt to remain silent, which carries with it the absolute right not to go into the witness box, was established in Comet Products UK Ltd v Hawkex Plastics Ltd [1971] 2 QB 67, where this court held that such a person is not a compellable witness. This right is to be distinguished both from the privilege against selfincrimination and…”
- Cited — Douherty v The Chief Constable of Essex Police 2019-01-30
“…‘40. A person accused of contempt, like the defendant in a criminal trial, has the right to remain silent: see Comet Products UK Ltd v Hawkex Plastics Ltd [1971] 2 QB 67. It is the duty of the court to ensure that the accused person is made aware of that right and also of the risk that adverse inferences may be drawn from his s…”