Medina Housing Association Ltd v Connolly

A procedural irregularity in committal proceedings does not invalidate a committal order where the alleged contemnor has had a fair trial and has suffered no material prejudice. The procedural rules remain important because they protect liberty, but technical non-compliance alone is insufficient.

Absent a contrary context, an injunction expressed to continue until a specified date remains effective throughout that date. In assessing sentence for breach of an injunction, the court may take account of earlier breaches and continuing intimidatory conduct. An appellate court will not interfere unless the sentence is manifestly excessive.

A housing association obtained injunctions restraining its tenant from threatening or causing nuisance or annoyance to local residents. On the day fixed for the possession trial, the tenant approached and stared at a resident who had just given evidence.

The Newport County Court treated the conduct as breaches of the injunction and committed him to prison for six months. It imposed a concurrent one-month sentence for contempt in the face of the court, which was not appealed. The tenant appealed against the six-month committal order, alleging procedural defects, expiry of the injunction before the incident, and excessive sentence.

Disposition

1. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. Peter Gibson LJ gave the principal judgment. Arden LJ and Cresswell J agreed.

2. The committal procedure did not comply with Order 29 rule 1 of the County Court Rules and the applicable Practice Direction. There had been no served committal application, no order dispensing with service, and no written evidence in the prescribed form. Those defects made the procedure irregular, but paragraph 10 of the Practice Direction permitted waiver where no injustice resulted.

   Applying the approach in Nicholls v Nicholls [1997] 1 WLR 314, the decisive question was whether the defects denied the alleged contemnor a fair trial or caused material prejudice. They did not. The incident was simple and substantially undisputed. The judge allowed cross-examination to be reserved, afforded time to obtain instructions and counsel if required, and would have allowed further time had it been sought. No request for further time or additional witnesses was made.

3. The court nevertheless stressed that judges should ordinarily follow the rules. They exist to avoid unfairness. The unusual course taken below was justified only by the particular circumstances.

4. The injunction stated that it continued until 24 June 2002. In its context, that phrase included the whole of 24 June. The date was fixed for the trial at which the court would decide whether to grant permanent relief, and there was no indication that the injunction was to end at a particular time or event during that day. The general rule identified in Isaacs v The Royal Insurance Company (1870) LR 5 Exchequer Cases 296 therefore applied. Arden LJ additionally observed that the appellant in fact understood that the injunction remained in force and protected the resident concerned.

5. The six-month sentence was within the permissible range. The judge was entitled to take account of the appellant’s previous breaches and his continuing intimidating conduct towards a witness at court. The sentence was not manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division). The appeal from the committal order was dismissed: [2002] EWCA Civ 1263.

• Newport County Court. On 25 June 2002, Judge Thompson QC committed the appellant to prison for six months for breach of the injunction. A concurrent one-month sentence for contempt in the face of the court was not appealed.