Unqualified apology can end contempt proceedings after alleged interference with a restraint order.

Interference with an existing restraint order was treated as potential contempt, but the proceedings did not continue once the respondents tendered an unqualified apology. The Court accepted that apology and discharged the contempt notice, indicating that acceptance of an unqualified apology may justify termination of contempt action despite alleged interference with the Court's earlier order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were liable for contempt for acting in alleged interference with the Court's earlier order, and whether the contempt notice should be discharged on acceptance of the apology.

Analysis: The alleged conduct was treated as interfering with the earlier restraint order. However, before final disposal, an unqualified apology was tendered on behalf of the respondents. In view of that apology, the Court accepted it and found it unnecessary to continue the contempt proceedings.

Conclusion: The respondents were not proceeded against further for contempt, and the notice of contempt was discharged.

Ratio Decidendi: An unqualified apology, when accepted by the Court, may justify discharge of contempt proceedings notwithstanding an earlier finding of interference with its order.

---