Stafford Borough Council v Haynes & Ors

The Court of Appeal held that the county court judge was wrong to adjourn indefinitely the local authority's applications for committal for contempt arising from alleged breaches of injunctions granted under section 152 of the Housing Act 1996. The judge had adjourned the applications until the conclusion of any possible criminal proceedings or further order, without hearing argument from the claimant and despite the defendants' admissions of the factual allegations.

The court reiterated the principle that contempt proceedings should ordinarily be dealt with swiftly and decisively and that adjournment pending other proceedings is permissible only where there is a real risk of prejudice leading to injustice. Because the defendants had admitted the conduct alleged, there was no such risk of prejudice and the adjournment was procedurally unfair and plainly wrong. The appeal was therefore allowed and the matter was remitted for prompt determination in the county court.

Background and parties:

• The appellant local authority (Stafford Borough Council) had obtained without-notice injunctions under section 152 of the Housing Act 1996 against tenants on a council estate to restrain anti-social behaviour, with powers of arrest attached.
• The respondents (Sandra Anderson, Gary Haynes and Benjamin Haynes) were served with those orders on 1 and 5 August 2002. An incident at service led to alleged breaches, arrests and an application by the council on 5 August 2002 for committal for contempt.

Procedural history:

• The defendants appeared before the county court judge on 9 August 2002, admitted the factual allegations in the application notices, but the judge expressed concern about a range of issues including the width of the original orders, whether housing officers or process servers fell within the protection of section 152, whether the defendants had proper notice of the terms, and the possibility of concurrent criminal proceedings.
• The county court judge adjourned the committal applications on terms that they should not be restored earlier than any alleged breach of the injunctions, the final determination of any criminal proceedings arising from the events of 5 August 2002, or further order of the court.
• The local authority appealed, arguing the adjournment was procedurally wrong and effectively denied them a determination of their application.

Issues framed by the Court of Appeal:

1. Whether the county court judge was entitled to adjourn indefinitely the contempt (committal) applications against the wishes of the applicant local authority.
2. Whether it was proper to delay contempt proceedings pending the possible outcome of criminal proceedings.
3. Whether housing officers and process servers fell within the protection of section 152 (not decided by the Court of Appeal because the point had not been determined below).

Court’s reasoning and decision:

• The Court of Appeal reviewed established principles: contempt proceedings are distinct from criminal proceedings, founded on the court's inherent power to enforce its orders, and should ordinarily be dealt with swiftly and effectively. Reference was made to authorities including London Borough of Barnet v Hurst and M v M (Committal: Contempt).
• Adjournment pending other proceedings is permissible only where a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial would otherwise arise. In this case the respondents had admitted the alleged conduct, so no such risk existed.
• The judge’s decision to adjourn the applications indefinitely (and until any criminal proceedings were finally determined) was procedurally unfair to the local authority and plainly wrong. The delay risked undermining effective enforcement and the ability to impose appropriate punishment.

Relief sought and disposition:

• The local authority had sought committal for contempt. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, remitted the applications to the county court for prompt hearing, and ordered the respondents to pay the claimants' issue and application fees as specified by the court.

Appeal allowed. The county court judge was plainly wrong to adjourn indefinitely the committal applications and to defer determination pending possible criminal proceedings; contempt proceedings should ordinarily be dealt with swiftly and an adjournment is appropriate only where there is a real risk of prejudice. The matter was remitted to the county court for prompt hearing.

Appeal from the Stafford County Court (His Honour Judge Mitchell) order of 9 August 2002. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the committal applications to the county court for prompt determination ([2003] EWCA Civ 159).