- Cited — Lioubov Macpherson v Sunderland City Council 2023-05-04
“…In Her Majesty's Attorney General v Timothy Crosland [2021] UKSC 15; [2021] 4 WLR 103 [44] the court set out the proper approach to sentencing for contempt of court. The court should adopt an approach similar to that in criminal cases and assess…”
- Cited — Edward Ellis v His Majesty’s Solicitor General 2023-05-03
“…order (here the GCRO) and acted intentionally in a way which breached that order: see Solicitor General v Cox [2016] 2 Cr.App.R 15; Attorney General v Crosland [2021] 4 WLR 103 and, in particular, Attorney General v Yaxley-Lennon [2019] EWHC 1791 at [88]. In other words, in a case like this, it is not necessary to demonstrate a specif…”
- Followed — Edward Ellis v His Majesty’s Solicitor General 2023-05-03
“…ut in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Co. Ltd v Khan [2019] EWCA Civ 392, [2019] 1WLR 3833, reiterated by the Supreme Court in Attorney-General v Crosland [2021] 4 WLR 103. The general approach is to follow the approach of the Sentencing Guidelines and, in particular, to consider the same factors that they do, namely culpability,…”
- Cited — InterDigital Technology Corporation & Ors v Lenovo Group Ltd & Ors 2023-01-30
“…Contempt proceedings for breach of the embargo can be brought by the Attorney General, as in Attorney General v Crosland [2021] UKSC 15 [2021] 4 WLR 103. The court can, as there, refer a case to the Attorney for consideration. Alternatively, the court can act of its own initiative pursuant to CPR 81.6(1). This …”
- Cited — Elliott Cuciurean v Secretary of State for Transport & Anor 2022-11-17
“…] EWCA Civ 9: [2020] 4 WLR 29 (“Cuadrilla”); Cuciurean v SoS for Transport & Anr [2021] EWCA Civ 357 (“Cuciurean”); Attorney General v Crosland [2021] UKSC 15; [2021] 4 WLR 103 (“Crosland”); National Highways Limited v Heyatawin [2021] EWHC 3078 (KB); [2022] Env.L.R. 17 (“Heyatawin”); National Highways Limited v Buse & Others. [2021] …”
- Cited — Business Mortgage Finance 4 Plc & Ors v Rizwan Hussain 2022-10-04
“…[2021] UKSC 15, [2021] 4 WLR 103 the Supreme Court stated at [44]:…”
- Applied — The Secretary of State for Transport v Elliott Cuciurean 2022-05-16
“…contempt. They imposed a fine on Mr Crosland of £5,000. The panel also considered the question of costs in a separate judgment: [2021] UKSC 15 (not reported at [2021] 4 WLR 103). At [5] they rejected the argument that the practice in criminal cases applied to a civil contempt. But they went on to say:…”
- Considered — AAA & Anor v CCC 2022-04-07
“…In HerMajesty’s Attorney General v Crosland [2021] 4 WLR 103, the Supreme Court considered the appropriate penalty where a contemnor had been responsible for disclosing to the public the outcome of the Supreme Court’s ju…”