A court may impose a fine for contempt of a court order that lacks a r.66.10(3) endorsement, but imprisonment is precluded absent the endorsement (or possibly where the warning function has been fulfilled by other means). A purported sale of assets to a closely associated party, where the deposit was never paid, the balance never paid, and the vendor made no attempt to terminate for non-payment, may be found to be a collusive device that does not excuse non-compliance with an order to deliver up the assets. The tender of money does not constitute compliance with an order requiring delivery up of specific assets.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 24 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 24 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.