Jolly v Circuit Judge Of Staines County Court & Ors

A county court may direct that proceedings pending in one district be heard in another district where the same judge is assigned to both courts. Failure to endorse a committal order with a penal notice is not necessarily fatal. The court may dispense with that requirement, including retrospectively, where the individual clearly understood the order and the consequences of disobedience. The privilege protecting parties and witnesses from arrest is a privilege of the court, not of the individual. It cannot found a damages claim for arrest, and in any event does not protect a person arrested for contempt arising from wilful disobedience of an injunction.

The appellant challenged two matters arising from matrimonial property proceedings. His action for damages against judges and court staff had been struck out as vexatious and an abuse of process, and his appeal from that decision was dismissed by His Honour Judge Rich QC on 19 March 1999. He also appealed, with permission, against a 1993 order committing him to prison for contempt after he failed to comply with an order concerning possession of the former matrimonial home.

The central issues were whether the county court had jurisdiction over the property proceedings; whether the committal order was invalid because it was made at another county court and lacked a penal notice; and whether the appellant was immune from arrest while attending other legal proceedings.

1. Appeals dismissed. The order striking out the damages claim was upheld, and the committal order was confirmed.
2. The county court had jurisdiction to determine proceedings under section 30 of the Law of Property Act 1925 whatever the value of the land, under the High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order 1991.
3. Under sections 1(1) and 5(1) of the County Courts Act 1984, a circuit judge could sit for any county court district to which he was assigned. Order 13 of the County Court Rules 1981 separately permitted directions that proceedings pending in one district be heard in another district where the same judge sat for both. Judge Hull therefore had jurisdiction to make the committal order while sitting at Guildford.
4. The absence of a penal notice on the order dated 28 October 1993 did not invalidate the committal. Order 29 rule 1(7) permitted the court to dispense with the requirement, consistently with Davy International Ltd v Tazzyman [1997] 1 WLR 1256, including retrospectively. The power was exceptional and should not be exercised readily, but the appellant had attended when the order was made, had received repeated warnings, and plainly understood the consequences of disobedience.
5. The privilege from arrest attending legal proceedings belongs to the court and cannot support a damages claim by the arrested person. It also does not protect a person arrested for contempt resulting from wilful disobedience of an injunction. The court therefore rejected reliance on the privilege, applying the principles discussed in Magnay v Burt [1843] 5 QB 380, Cameron v Lightfoot [1778] 2 Wm. Bl. 1190, In Re Hunt [1959] 2 QB 69, and In Re Freston [1883] 11 QB 545.

Lord Justice Peter Gibson agreed with Lord Justice Judge and added that the reasoning in Davy International Ltd v Tazzyman applied with similar force to Order 29 rule 1(7). Mr Justice Ferris agreed with both judgments.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): appeals dismissed; the order striking out the damages action was upheld and the committal order confirmed.
• High Court: His Honour Judge Rich QC dismissed the appellant’s appeal from the decision striking out his action for damages.
• County Court: the damages action was struck out as vexatious and an abuse of process. His Honour Judge Hull QC committed the appellant to prison for fourteen days on 17 November 1993.