T. Slahta

During a lengthy matrimonial trial, the applicant alleged that the respondent's former counsel, SimpsonWigle LLP, breached a Mareva injunction by receiving payments from frozen offshore companies.

The parties agreed to defer the contempt hearing against the law firm until after the trial judgment.

At the commencement of the contempt hearing, the law firm brought a motion to dismiss, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the Mareva order was no longer live and operative.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no requirement in law that an order must be live and operative when a contempt motion is brought or a finding is made, particularly where the purpose is to address a deliberate breach rather than to coerce compliance.

In the context of a family law dispute, the applicant brought a contempt motion against the respondent's former lawyers for allegedly receiving funds in breach of a Mareva injunction.

Both the applicant and the alleged contemnors brought motions for documentary production.

The court held that because contempt is a quasi-criminal proceeding, the alleged contemnors are not subject to the automatic disclosure obligations of the Rules of Civil Procedure and have a right against self-incrimination.

The court dismissed the applicant's request for an affidavit of documents but granted a preservation order against the lawyers.

The court also ordered the applicant to produce relevant communications to the alleged contemnors to allow them to make full answer and defence.