Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Others v Playboy Films (Pty) Ltd and Another 1978 (3) SA 202 (W)

In the case of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Others v Playboy Films (Pty) Ltd and Another, the court dealt with an application for the committal of a director, Jagger, for contempt of court. Jagger was a director of the first respondent company and was in de facto control of the company. An order was granted by the court against the first respondent, and Jagger was aware of the terms of this order. Despite giving undertakings to comply with the court order, Jagger failed to do so, leading to breaches of several terms of the order.

Jagger explicitly stated at a meeting that he would not comply with the court order, indicating his refusal to cause the company to adhere to the order. The application for Jagger's committal for contempt of court was served on the first respondent, and Jagger claimed to have personally received the papers at a later date. Despite being granted time to respond to the allegations against him, Jagger did not file any affidavits or take steps to address the matter.

The court held that a director who, with knowledge of a court order against the company, causes the company to disobey the order is guilty of contempt of court. Jagger's actions were deemed a gross contempt as he not only failed to ensure the company's compliance but also proceeded to liquidate the company without regard for the court order or his personal responsibilities.

The court highlighted the importance of upholding its orders to maintain the administration of justice and prevent individuals like Jagger from undermining the legal system. Jagger was found to be in criminal contempt for willfully disregarding the court order. Despite later cooperating and mitigating his contempt by complying with the order, the court sentenced Jagger to a fine, imprisonment, and a suspended sentence, underlining the seriousness of his actions.

The court's order included a fine, imprisonment, and a suspended sentence for Jagger, along with conditions for the suspension. The court stressed the need to ensure compliance with court orders and the severe consequences for individuals who show contempt for the legal system.

The core legal principle underlying the decision in this case is that a director of a company who, with knowledge of a court order against the company, causes the company to disobey the order is personally guilty of contempt of court. This principle holds that directors cannot evade responsibility for ensuring compliance with court orders by the company they oversee. The court stressed the importance of upholding its orders to safeguard the administration of justice and prevent individuals from undermining the legal system. The decision underscores the accountability of directors in ensuring compliance with court orders and the severe consequences for those who show contempt for the legal system.

The court referred to the legal principles outlined in Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th edition, volume 9, at page 75, to support its reasoning in the case. The court cited this legal authority to emphasize the principle that a director of a company who knowingly causes the company to disobey a court order is personally guilty of contempt of court.