CA-2025-000597 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1458

The issue on this appeal is whether an injunction respondent who has not actually done anything prohibited by the injunction can be guilty of contempt of court for acting contrary to the spirit and purpose of the injunction.

In March 2023 the respondent, FW Aviation (Holdings) 1 Ltd (‘FWA’), obtained an interim injunction against the appellant, VietJet Aviation Joint Stock Company (‘VietJet’), prohibiting it from ‘taking possession of or operating [four identified] Aircraft either directly or indirectly or otherwise interfering with [FWA’s] right to possession, custody and/or control of the Aircraft’. VietJet subsequently sent a number of letters to public authorities in Vietnam which, at least on one view, were an attempt to interfere with the export of the aircraft from Vietnam.

In August 2024 FWA applied for permission to amend an extant contempt application by adding a new allegation that the sending of these letters constituted a contempt. FWA made clear that it did not contend that VietJet had infringed the injunction by sending the letters. Rather, its case was that the letters were an attempt to circumvent the injunction, contrary to its spirit and purpose, and thus an intentional interference with the administration of justice amounting to a criminal contempt of court.

Mr Justice Picken granted permission to make this amendment, but did not address VietJet’s key argument that it was impossible in law for the respondent to an injunction to commit a contempt in relation to the injunction without actually infringing it. On this appeal VietJet contends that he was wrong to do so.

I have concluded that the appeal must be allowed. The answer to the question identified in para 1 above, at least in the circumstances of the present case, is ‘No’.