The bankrupt Applicant in this case sought a declaration from the Court that he had purged his contempt. He had previously, on numerous occasions, provided false or incomplete information to creditors that had opposed his discharge from bankruptcy despite Court Orders requiring complete and honest production.

Master Smart considered Rule 10.53(3) which allows the Court to waive or suspend a penalty or sanction “[i]f a person declared to be in civil contempt of Court purges the person’s contempt.”

Ultimately, Master Smart determined that the most recent production of the Applicant failed to answer the central question to the litigation (i.e. where had the money gone?) and, therefore, the Applicant had failed to purge his contempt.