Newman v Modern Bookbinders Ltd

Committal under section 92 of the County Courts Act 1984 is a penal process attracting basic procedural rights. An alleged contemnor must receive adequate details of the accusation and, where imprisonment becomes an appreciable risk, an opportunity to seek publicly funded representation.

A third-party claim to seized goods requires no particular formality. If the claim is sufficiently detailed and credible, the district judge must issue an interpleader summons. Enforcement cannot properly continue until ownership has been determined.

The appellant challenged Johnson J's order committing him to prison for one month under section 92 of the County Courts Act 1984. A bailiff had levied upon computers at the appellant's publishing business. The appellant moved the computers despite a walking possession agreement, but he and another person asserted that the computers belonged wholly or partly to that other person or to a finance company.

The appellant was arrested and brought directly before the county court without a written charge or advice about his entitlement to apply for legal aid. The district judge had declined to issue an interpleader summons concerning ownership. The central issues were whether the committal procedure was fair and whether enforcement could continue before the third-party claims had been determined.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. Sedley LJ, giving the judgment of the court, held that the committal was contrary to law. The case was remitted to the county court for an interpleader summons to be issued and determined before the bailiff took any further step.

2. Proceedings under section 92(1)(b) of the County Courts Act 1984 are penal and amount to the determination of a criminal charge for Convention purposes. The alleged contemnor has a common law right to adequate notice of the accusation. At a minimum, the person must be told what goods were allegedly rescued, and when and from where they were removed. Good practice requires the charge to be put in writing and read to the defendant at the outset unless the defendant has already read and understood it.

3. Where an unrepresented defendant faces an appreciable risk of imprisonment, section 29 of the Legal Aid Act 1988 requires the court to consider its power to grant representation, ask whether representation is wanted, and, if it is, determine whether representation is desirable in the interests of justice. The failures to explain the charge and to advise the appellant of his entitlement to apply for legal aid were separate denials of justice which vitiated the committal.

4. A committal warrant must identify the contempt precisely enough to enable the prisoner to purge it and seek release or mitigation under section 92(2). The absence of prescribed statutory procedures does not remove the common law obligation to use a fair procedure.

5. A bailiff may ordinarily treat goods in a debtor's possession as the debtor's goods. This is subject to exempt goods, goods manifestly belonging to somebody else, and the rights of joint owners. Goods exempt under section 89(1)(a) are taken at the bailiff's peril, although the court did not decide whether the computers were exempt tools of the appellant's trade.

6. No particular formality is required for a claim under section 101. Notice may assert that the claimant has a title superior to the debtor's possessory title or that a fourth party has such a title. Once a claim is sufficiently detailed and credible, the district judge has no option but to issue an interpleader summons. The evidence concerning ownership met that threshold. Until interpleader was determined, it was impossible to know whether the levy was valid and, to the extent that it was invalid, no unlawful rescue could arise.

• Court of Appeal: Allowed the appeal in [2000] EWCA Civ 2, set aside the committal and remitted the case for an interpleader summons to be issued and determined before further enforcement.
• Milton Keynes County Court: Johnson J committed the appellant to prison for one month on 15 June 1999 for rescuing or attempting to rescue seized goods under section 92 of the County Courts Act 1984.