O'Connor v Hough

The case of O'Connor v Hough involved a dispute where the respondent, Mr Hough, sought to have an application for contempt brought against him dismissed. The application for contempt alleged that Mr Hough had breached undertakings given to the court. The legal issues before the court included whether the contempt application was bad for duplicity, whether particulars could incorporate documents by reference, and whether a penal notice was required to be endorsed on orders containing undertakings given by a party to the court.

The court examined the rule against duplicity and found that it does not apply to contempt applications in the strict sense. Instead, the court considered whether the charge was sufficiently certain to inform the respondent of the case he was expected to meet. The court also found that it is permissible for particulars to incorporate documents by reference. Additionally, the court held that there was no requirement for a penal notice to be endorsed on orders containing undertakings given by a party to the court.

The court dismissed the amended application filed by the second respondent and ordered the second respondent to pay the second applicant's costs of and incidental to the dismissed application.