Amberley Construction Ltd v Beamish

An order committing a person for contempt may be set aside where the procedure fails to protect a fair trial, even if the underlying conduct may have been contemptuous. The alleged contemnor must receive clear advance particulars of each alleged act, a reasonable opportunity to obtain advice and prepare a defence, and an opportunity to explain, apologise and address penalty. Severe questioning designed to obtain admissions against interest, without a warning about self-incrimination, is inappropriate. Serious and prejudicial procedural defects engage Article 6 and require the order to be set aside where the interests of justice so demand.

Amberley Construction Ltd had obtained judgment for damages for breach of an employment contract. Paul Douglas Beamish failed to pay and was subject to orders requiring attendance at court, disclosure of his means and production of documents concerning bank accounts.

On 11 July 2003, His Honour Judge Kennedy QC, acting on his own motion, questioned Mr Beamish about alleged inconsistencies in evidence concerning a bank account and made a suspended committal order for contempt. The hearing took place on short notice. Mr Beamish was unrepresented, had not received detailed written particulars of the alleged contempts and was not given an opportunity to obtain legal advice or prepare a defence.

The appeal concerned whether the committal procedure was defective, whether the order improperly operated to enforce the judgment debt, and whether the questioning and absence of safeguards made the order unsafe.

1. Appeal allowed. The committal order was set aside. The court was concerned with the legality and fairness of the committal process, not with the appellant’s underlying conduct towards the judgment creditor.
2. Committal proceedings should ordinarily be kept separate from enforcement of private-law rights. The inclusion of a requirement to pay the judgment debt did not itself invalidate this order because the term had been included at the appellant’s suggestion.
3. The Committal Applications Practice Direction, supplementing the Civil Procedure Rules, required particular care. Each alleged act of contempt should be separately and numerically identified. The alleged contemnor should be informed in detail of the case, given reasonable time to obtain legal advice and prepare a defence, and allowed to explain, apologise and address the court on penalty. The usual period of notice was materially shortened without adequate justification, and the notice itself was defective because an important letter was not attached.
4. The judge had effectively acted as both prosecutor and judge. That made strict compliance with procedural safeguards especially important, particularly because the appellant was unrepresented. The hearing combined investigation, conviction and sentence without allowing time for reflection or a full response. Applying the guidance in Nicholls v Nicholls [1997] 1 WLR 314 at page 327, the defects were sufficiently serious and prejudicial that the interests of justice required the order to be set aside.
5. Lord Justice Mance added that committal for breach of an order, and a fortiori for telling lies in the face of the court, was a criminal procedure for Article 6 purposes, relying on Berry Trade Ltd v Moussavi [2002] EWCA Civ 4771. The judge’s severe interrogation, designed to elicit admissions against interest without a warning about self-incrimination, was inappropriate and reinforced the conclusion that the order could not stand.
6. The court nevertheless warned that the appellant remained at risk of further proceedings unless he corrected his answers and disclosed the true position concerning the bank account. Permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal allowed and the suspended committal order set aside; permission to appeal to the House of Lords refused.
2. Worthing County Court: On 11 July 2003, His Honour Judge Kennedy QC committed the appellant to 28 days’ imprisonment for three alleged contempts, with the order suspended on specified conditions.