The application of 4 September 2025
The application of 4 September 2025
As to the application of 4 September 2025, I held that there was no rule requiring that a corporate litigant should put in evidence a resolution of the board of directors authorising the bringing or defending of the proceedings in question. Nor indeed could I find any requirement in the articles of association of the applicant in the contempt application to the effect that such a resolution was the only way of authorising litigation. I also referred to the legal maxim omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta. It would be presumed that the company had complied with its own corporate requirements unless the contrary was proved, which in the present case it had not been.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The respondent’s further applications
- Dealing with the applications
- The application of 13 August 2025
- The application of 4 September 2025
- Sentencing in the absence of the respondent
- The respondent’s further application
- The position of the applicant in the contempt application
- Discussion
- Conclusion on the application
- Sentencing decision
- The respondent’s position
- The mental element in contempt
- Purging contempt
- Starting point
- Aggravation and mitigation
- Decision in principle
- Fine?
- Suspended sentence?
- Conclusions
![BL-2021-002235 - [2025] EWHC 2367 (Ch)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_O3rEzCI.png)