Civil contempt requires wilful disobedience, and bona fide conduct under a disputed contract may defeat a status quo allegation.

Civil contempt requires clear proof of wilful, deliberate disobedience of a court order. The text explains that changing a domain name and routing ticket collections to a company account did not automatically establish contempt where the respondents acted under a bona fide understanding arising from a disputed termination of the operating agreement. It also notes that the alleged conduct was not shown to amount to alienation of assets or a proved breach of the status quo order, particularly while the underlying contractual dispute remained pending. On that reasoning, wilful disobedience was not established and civil contempt was not made out.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were guilty of civil contempt for wilful disobedience of the status quo order by changing the domain name and routing ticket collections to the respondent company's account.

Analysis: Civil contempt requires proof of wilful disobedience of a court order. The decision emphasised that the disobedience must be deliberate and intentional, and that conduct taken under a bona fide understanding arising from the disputed termination of the operating agreement could not automatically be treated as contempt. The alleged acts were found not to amount to alienation of assets or a proved breach of the status quo order, especially when the underlying contractual dispute was still pending adjudication.

Conclusion: The respondents were not found guilty of civil contempt, as wilful disobedience of the status quo order was not established.

---