Summary

Committal proceedings-renewal of

Facts

Preliminary objection that application for committal was incompetent because earlier application on same grounds had been heard without any order being made on it.

Held

No order had been made on the earlier application because it did not comply with RSC.O.52 r.4 as it omitted to state the grounds relied on. The position was analogous to a prosecution which failed because of a defective indictment before arraignment where the rule of double jeopardy would not be available.An applicant should not be prevented from renewing a complaint of contempt because of a procedural defect The judge had not been into the merits & case was open.

Objection overruled.