Birmingham City Council & Anor v Yardley

A judgment handed down in public is not invalid merely because the copy supplied is headed “Draft”, unsigned or later subject to minor amendment. The later drawing-up of the order does not invalidate the decision.

An injunction restricting communications with a public authority may be proportionate where it follows a sustained campaign of nuisance or harassment. The court must balance freedom of expression and access to public bodies against the right to protection from such conduct. Membership of the same barristers’ chambers does not of itself establish bias. A party who was told of the connection before trial and declined to object waives that objection.

The Birmingham City Council and its former licensing-committee chairman obtained judgment against Mr Yardley after a prolonged dispute about hackney-carriage licences. The Recorder dismissed Mr Yardley’s counterclaim for misfeasance in public office, found the council’s nuisance claim proved, and later granted an injunction.

Mr Yardley was subsequently committed for breach of that injunction, receiving a suspended sentence. The County Court also replaced the injunction with one limiting his communications with the council. He appealed the committal order and sought permission to appeal the replacement injunction and the Recorder’s later refusal to pronounce the earlier judgment in open court.

The central issues were whether the Recorder had validly handed down judgment, whether the injunction was excessive or incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, and whether the Recorder was disqualified by apparent bias.

1. Appeal dismissed; permission applications refused. The Recorder validly handed down judgment in public on 8 January 2003. The document explained his conclusions and reasons. Its heading as a draft, its lack of signature or seal, and the later drawing-up of the order did not invalidate the decision. A judge may alter wording when approving a handed-down judgment, but not its decision.

2. The injunction was not founded on the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, as Mr Yardley asserted, but on nuisance. The Recorder properly balanced Mr Yardley’s rights of expression and access to an accountable public body against the council’s and Mr Nott’s right to protection from his persistent and targeted conduct. Those competing considerations did not show a breach of Articles 6, 10 or 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The injunction was also sufficiently confined: it restricted communications with specified council departments while preserving a channel for reasonable requests and the possibility of an application to vary it.

3. The bias ground failed. Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd [2000] QB 451 established that barristers in the same chambers do not have the mutual responsibility or detailed knowledge characteristic of solicitors. The Recorder had disclosed his membership of the same chambers as counsel before trial and expressly invited objection. Mr Yardley’s failure to object then waived the point; it was too late to raise it as a ground of appeal.

4. No irregularity in the committal application materials was shown. The appeal against the committal order was dismissed and permission to appeal the two other orders was refused, with costs not to be enforced without further order.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Dismissed the appeal against the committal order and refused permission to appeal the injunction order and the Recorder’s order of 2 April 2004: [2004] EWCA Civ 1756.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) (Buxton LJ) — On 10 April 2003, refused permission to appeal the Recorder’s substantive decision dismissing the counterclaim.
• Birmingham County Court (His Honour Judge McKenna) — On 18 September 2003, made a committal order for breach of injunction, imposing 28 days’ imprisonment suspended for 12 months; discharged and replaced the existing injunction.
• Birmingham County Court (Recorder Tedd QC) — Dismissed the counterclaim, found the nuisance claim proved, and granted an injunction on 19 February 2003. On 2 April 2004, refused an application to hand down and pronounce the substantive judgment in open court.