When construing a court order for contempt purposes, the originating judgment is the primary reference point for resolving ambiguity, not merely extrinsic context. Orders need not be completely self-contained; incorporation by reference to readily accessible documents such as planning instruments is permissible. Evidence given by a company officer on cross-examination on return of a subpoena is not automatically part of the evidence in related proceedings and cannot be used against the parties unless formally tendered or the subject of an explicit order. Where alleged uncertainty in a contempt charge is minor and no prejudice is shown, the uncertainty may be treated as immaterial.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 119 later cases that cite this judgment.
22 of the 119 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.