In this country, the question whether the civil or criminal standard applies when it is alleged that a person has failed to comply with an order made or undertaking given in civil proceedings has fallen for direct decision only in comparatively recent times. Perhaps that is because, ordinarily, failure is so apparent that the answer does not vary according to the standard of proof required. The question was considered in the United Kingdom, in In re Bramblevale Ltd [4] , and it was held that the criminal standard applied. Bramblevale was followed in subsequent cases in the United Kingdom [5] , in Canada [6] , and, also, in this country [7] . However it appears that doubts developed in this country in consequence of judicial statements that did not clearly endorse the need for proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, for example, it was said by the NSW Court of Appeal in Law Society of NSW v Kinsella [8] , in relation to a civil contempt, that "[w]hatever may be the precise burden of proof that burden has been satisfied" [9] . Given the doubts and given also that there had been a concession by counsel in Bramblevale that the criminal standard applied [10] , it was held in Jendell that, in the light of the distinction between civil and criminal contempt, the better view was that, in the case of a civil contempt, the civil standard applies but "that "the degree of satisfaction for which the civil standard of proof calls may vary according to the gravity of the fact to be proved" " [11] . It was also acknowledged that " "the gravity of the consequence flowing from a particular finding" is one consideration which must affect the degree of satisfaction" [12] . The decision in Jendell has since been followed in a number of Australian cases [13] and, of course, adopted as correct in New South Wales Egg Corporation.