Seaward v. Paterson - Case Summary

 

The case of Seaward v. Paterson (1897) is landmark English case regarding liability of third/non-parties for contempt. It is a case where it was decided whether a third party who is not named in an injunction, can be held in contempt of Court.

FACT OF THE CASE

          In the case the landlord of the premises concerned had obtained an injunction against Paterson i.e. his tenant restraining him from doing or allowing to be done anything on the premises which would be a nuisance to the landlord and from using the premises otherwise than for the purposes of a private club. Alleging that the tenant had committed contempt of the court by allowing the premises to be used for boxing matches, the landlord applied for committal of two other persons, namely, Sheppard and Murray on the ground that they had aided and assisted the tenant in his disobedience to the injunction.

          The plaintiff, William Seaward moved that the defendant, Paterson, George Sheppard and Edwin Murray who were described in the notice of motion as the ‘agents or servants’ of the defendant, might be committed to prison, or that the plaintiffs might be at liberty to issue a writ or writs of attachment against the defendant, and against the agents or servants for their contempt in having disobeyed and aided and assisted in disobeying the order of Court in injunction suit restraining the defendant from violating the covenants contained in the lease.

          It was also alleged by the Plaintiff, Seaward that the defendants had used the premises demised for meetings for the purpose of boxing which caused serious nuisance to the owner and adjoining houses.

DECISION

The following passages from the judgment of Lindley, L.J. are quite instructive: (All ER pp. 1130 F-G & 1131 B-D)

Now, Let us consider what jurisdiction the court has to make an order against Murray. There is no injunction against him—he is no more bound by the injunction granted against Paterson than any other member of the public. He is bound, like other members of the public, not to interfere with, and not to obstruct, the course of justice; and the case, if any, made against him must be this, not that he has technically infringed the injunction, which was not granted against him in any sense of the word, but that he has been aiding and abetting others in setting the court at defiance, and deliberately treating the order of the court as unworthy of notice. If he has so conducted himself, it is perfectly idle to say that there is no jurisdiction to commit him for contempt as distinguished from a breach of the injunction, which has a technical meaning.

A motion to commit a man for breach of an injunction, which is technically wrong unless he is bound by the injunction, is one thing; and a motion to commit a man for contempt of court, not because he is bound by the injunction by being party to the cause, but because he is conducting himself so as to obstruct the course of justice, is another and a totally different thing. The difference is very marked. In the one case the party who is bound by the injunction is proceeded against for the purpose of enforcing the order of the court for the benefit of the person who got it. In the other case, the court will not allow its process to be set at naught and treated with contempt.

The liability  of third party in contempt proceeding is an exception to general that a person who is not a party to the proceedings in which an order of  injunction  is passed cannot be proceeded  against for contempt, it must clearly established that the order in question was either served upon him or that he had actual knowledge of its contents. The foundational requirement is proof of knowledge of the injunction and a deliberate decision to flout or undermine it.

Also read: Doctrine of Cypres - Explanation

This Nineteenth Century case is widely cited by Supreme Court of India/Indian courts in deciding cases on contempt of Court proceeding on third party in injunction case to hold liable for knowingly assisting in the violation of an injunction.

Some of  the relevant cases are the decision  of the Privy Council in S.N Banerjee vs Kuchwar Lime and Stone Co. Ltd AIR 1938 PC 295, Krishna Gupta vs Sh. Narendra Nath & Anr. (2017), Sita Ram vs Babu alias Babu Rai (2017), etc.

It is well established principle that one who is knowingly aids and abets a party to an injunction in violating Court order/ decree is liable to criminal or civil contempt proceedings.

  Also Read: Suhas Chakma vs. Union of India & Ors (Right of the prisoners to live with dignity, equality and without discrimination.