(1984)1984 November 15 [PIKIS, J.] Plaintiffs. SUNSHOES LIMITED, Defendants (Trade Mark Action No. 6/84). Contempt of Court—Civil Contempt—Purged by subsequent submission to the order—Committal and sequestration rarely resorted to—Defendants not burdened with previous acts of disobedience to anorder of the Court—Appropriatepunishment afineof C£200 —Agreement between theparties for thesettlement of thecase— 5 Does not of itself put an end to contempt proceedings. On an ex parte application of the plaintiffs, in a trade mark action, an interim order was made restraining the defendants from infringing the registered trade marks of the plaintiffs. The defendants continued to make illegaluse of thetrade marks 10 in defiance to theorder ofthe Court; and hencethese proceedings for their committal for contempt. After the filing of the committal proceedings the defendants complied with the order of the Court, discontinued use of the trade marks of plaintiffs and destroyed stocks produced in violation of the property 15 rights of the plaintiffs. They, also, made amendsto the plaintiffs satisfactory enough to lead to a settlement of the case, including an undertaking to pay the costs of the proceedings. Held, (I) that agreement between the parties for the settlement of the case does not of itself put an end to contempt pro- 20 ceedings, because interest in the outcome of a civil contempt is not confined to the interest of the litigants in the matter because civil contempt affects the efficacy of the judicial process and generally theadministration ofjustice;that where a contempt has been purged by subsequent submission to the order com- 25 738 1 C.L.R. 5 mittal and sequestration are rarely resorted to; that the appropriate punishment in this case is a fine, relatively low in view of the purging of the contempt and the amends made but high enough to mark that disobedience of an ordei of the Court is under any circumstances a serious matter; and that taking into consideiation in favour of the defendants the fact that they are not burdened withprevious acts of disobedience to an order of the Court, they are ordeied to pay a fine of CC200 (pp. 740-741 post). !0 Defendants sentenced to a fine of C£200. Cases referred to: Elliot v. K/ingcr [1967]3All E.R. 141at p. 144. 15 Application. Application by the plaintiffs for the committal of the defendants for contempt for disobedience of an interim order restrainingthem from infringing plaintiff's trademark by unlawfully copying it in the production of shoes. St. Nathonael for L. Demetriades, for the applicants. 20 Chr. Kitromilides, for the respondents. Cur. adv. vult. PIKIS J. read the following judgment. This is a trade mark action of the plaintiffs to restrain the defendants, shoe manufacturers, from infringing their trade mark by unlawfully copy25 ing it in the production of shoes and other consequential relief for the protection and restoration of their rights. On an ex parte application of the plaintiffs an interim order was made restraining defendants from infringing the registered trade marks of the plaintiffs. Notwithstanding service of an endorsed 30 copy of the order made and knowledge gained thereby the defendants, as they admit and acknowledge, continued through a subsidiary or associate company, to make illegal use of the trade marks in defiance to the order of the Court. Hence the present proceedings for the committal of the defendants for 35 contempt. Proceedings against the third parties, that is the aforementioned associate company of the defendants, were discontinued. 739 Pikis J.
(1984)It is gratifying to notice respondents have complied with the order of the Court, discontinued use of the trade marks of plaintiffs and destroyed stocks produced in violation of the property rights of plaintiffs. Moreover, 1hey made amends to the plaintiff's satisfactory enough to lead toasettlement of 5 the case, including an undertaking to pay the costs of the proceedings. As counsel for the plaintiffs informed me,they have no further cause for complaint. The only outstanding matter is the punishment that the Court may, in its discretion, deem appropriatetoimposefor disobedienceoftheOrderoftheCourt.. 10 Counsel for the condemnors laid stress on the fullness of the amends made, including costs, emphasizing it is the first time defendants disobeyed an order of the Court. Both counsel, I am glad to note, appreciated that agreement between the parties for the settlement of the case does not of 15 itself put an end to contempt proceedings, for interest in the outcome of a civil contempt is not confined to the interest of the litigants in the matter. Civil contempt affects the efficacy' ofthejudicialprocessand generally theadministrationofjustice. An order of the Court isno lessa command of the lawthan 20 the provisions of a statute, more direct still in that it specifies what ought to be done or what ought not to be done. Invariably disobedience of the order of the Court undeimines the effectiveness of the judicial process, a defiance of far reaching social repercussions. Obedience to orders of the Court con- 25 stitutes one of the foundations of civilized life. Without exception Courts take a serious view of acts of disobedience of orders of the Court. Naturally we view with. less stringency purged acts of contempt, that is, contempts cleared by a subsequent obedience to the order, especially 30 if accompanied by proper amends to those immediately injured bythe contempt. It isdifficult to establish a patern for punishment for purged civil contempts in the above sense for it is peculiarly connected with the facts' of the case. Where a contempt has been purged by subsequent submission to the 35 order, commital and sequestration are rarely resorted to. A fine is an alternative remedy but not the only alternative remedy(l). The Court may, at its discretion,,grant an injun
(1)See HaUbury's Laws of England, 4th Ed., Vol. 9, paras. 101-106. 740' 1 C.L.R. Pikis J. ction in lieu of another punishment to restrain the commission of a civil contempt(l). However, an injunction may be re sorted as a means of punishment if there is a likelihood of future repetition of the acts complained of, a risk that is hope5 fully inextstent in this case because of an overall settlement of the case. In my judgment the appropriate punishment in this case is a fine, relatively low in view of the purging of thecontempt andtheamendsmadebut highenoughtomarkthatdisobedience 10 of an order of the Court is under any circumstances a serious matter. The defendants are ordered to pay a fine of C£200The fact that defendants are not burdened with previous acts of disobedience toan order of the Courtis a factor thatweighed heavily intheirfavour. But let this warning be administered to 15 them: In case of future acts of disobedience to an order of the Court, they can expect no lenience from the Court. Imakenoorderastocosts inviewof thestatement of counsel that this matter has been settled. Defendants ordered to pay £200-fine.
(1)Elliot v. Klinger [196η 3 All E.R. 141, 144. 741