Trebell v Trebell

Where a protective injunction has failed to resolve persistent breaches, the court may discharge it rather than impose a further committal if the complainant’s inconsistent conduct has undermined its purpose and the court has previously given clear warnings. The court need not resolve every disputed factual issue where, on the material facts, the outcome would necessarily be the same and no injustice results. A carefully reasoned decision in that context is distinguishable from a cursory committal hearing in which the relevant facts and history were not properly considered.

The applicant sought permission to appeal from an order of Middlesbrough County Court dated 27 February 2001. The judge had refused to commit her 19-year-old drug-addicted son for breaching an injunction protecting her from violence, harassment and unauthorised attendance at the family home, and had revoked the injunction.

The injunction formed part of a long history of repeated breaches and committals. At an earlier hearing, the judge had warned the mother that further invitations or inconsistent contact would lead to discharge of the injunction. She subsequently met her son and arranged further contact. After he entered or attended the home, the judge concluded that the proceedings should be brought to an end. The central issues were whether the judge had been required to hear oral evidence about the disputed circumstances and whether revocation of the injunction was lawful.

1. Application dismissed. The judge was entitled to revoke the injunction and refuse a further committal.
2. The earlier warning was material. The mother had been told that further invitations or inconsistent conduct would result in discharge of the injunction. She thereafter continued contact with her son and thereby gave him mixed messages. The injunction had failed to achieve its intended purpose despite repeated committals and breaches.
3. It was unnecessary to resolve every factual dispute about the son’s attendance at the house. However precisely the disputed events were determined, the mother’s conduct before and after the earlier hearing justified the conclusion that the chain of repeated injunction and committal proceedings had to be broken. The decision caused no injustice.
4. Manchester City Council v Worthington was materially different. That case involved a cursory committal hearing in which the judge refused to hear relevant facts and gave inadequate reasons. Here, the judge gave a reasoned judgment and acted against the background of his specific prior warnings.
5. Lord Justice Bennett considered that the factual dispute would ordinarily have warranted hearing the evidence, particularly because the mother risked losing the protection of the court. He nevertheless agreed that the omission caused no injustice, because the mother’s own conduct made discharge inevitable. Lord Justice Tuckey agreed with the leading judgment.

Public funding orders were made for both parties.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): application for permission to appeal dismissed. The order of Middlesbrough County Court dated 27 February 2001 was upheld in substance.
• Middlesbrough County Court: Judge Taylor refused committal for breach of the injunction and revoked the injunction.