A court should not excuse non-compliance with the penal notice requirement in r 665(3) UCPR unless satisfied the contemnor was not disadvantaged, particularly where the contemnor is unrepresented and the application itself fails to comply with r 372 by not identifying the procedural irregularity. Correspondence from the opposing party's solicitor asserting existing contempt is not equivalent to the neutral penal notice contemplated by r 665(3).
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.