De Grey & Anor v Ford & Anor

An order for possession has continuing effect. It requires the dispossessed party to give possession to the person entitled to it and to allow that person to retain possession. Re-entry is a fresh breach, even after an earlier breach has been punished, and does not require a further possession order before committal. A county court may punish disobedience of its own possession order. The jurisdictional rule for contempt merely connected with county court proceedings, where no county court order was disobeyed, does not apply. Civil committal for breach of an order is distinct from any criminal prosecution for the same conduct, although a later criminal sentence should take account of imprisonment already served. Parties must obey an order unless and until it is set aside. Repeated, deliberate breaches can justify escalating punishment.

The appellants, Mr and Mrs Ford, disputed their neighbours’ claim to land and unsuccessfully asserted squatters’ title at an eight-day trial before Judge Dean QC. On 23 August 2004, the Central London County Court ordered them to give up possession. They repeatedly re-entered the land and interfered with attempts to secure it.

Judge Harris found six breaches of the possession order and imposed a suspended 28-day committal order, which was later served. Further conduct after the appellants’ release led Judge Knight QC, on 15 and 16 December 2005, to order the committal of each appellant for 42 days. They appealed as of right, alleging denial of legal representation, inadequate preparation time, lack of county court jurisdiction, the need for a further possession order, and double jeopardy. The central issue was whether the committal orders and sentences were lawful.

Disposition. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. The application for an adjournment was refused, as were applications for permission to appeal and a stay of execution.

1. The refusal of an adjournment was an exercise of Judge Knight’s discretion. The appellants had consistently chosen to represent themselves, Mrs Ford had demonstrated an ability to present their case, and both had been able to address the allegations. There was no basis for appellate interference with the exercise of that discretion.
2. The county court had jurisdiction. In re G (a child) concerned contempt merely connected with county court proceedings, where there was neither contempt in the face of the court nor disobedience of a county court order. The present case concerned deliberate disobedience of a possession order made by the county court, and was materially different.
3. A possession order requiring possession to be given up by a specified date is not exhausted on that date. Its effect is that possession is transferred to the person entitled to it and that person is permitted to retain possession. Re-entry is therefore a breach of the order. A further possession order was unnecessary before later breaches could be punished, even though an earlier breach had already resulted in committal.
4. The proceedings did not expose Mr Ford to double jeopardy. The civil remedy for breach of the possession order was distinct from any criminal remedy arising from the same conduct. If a criminal court later imposed a sentence, it should take account of imprisonment already served for the contempt.
5. Any doubts or reluctance previously expressed by Judge Dean did not excuse contempt. The underlying judgment had been considered by the Court of Appeal, and the appellants remained obliged to obey the order unless and until it was set aside. Their expectation of a retrial was irrelevant.
6. In view of the deliberate and repeated breaches, the 42-day sentences were justified. Further contempt could properly attract substantially more severe punishment.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 22 December 2005, the court dismissed the appeal against the committal orders and refused the associated applications. [2005] EWCA Civ 1791
2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — On 30 September 2005, an earlier appeal against Judge Harris’s contempt decision was dismissed.
3. Central London County Court — Judge Knight QC ordered the committal of each appellant for 42 days on 15 and 16 December 2005. Judge Harris had earlier found six breaches of the possession order and imposed a suspended 28-day committal order.
4. Central London County Court — Judge Dean QC rejected the appellants’ claim to squatters’ title and ordered them to give up possession on 23 August 2004.