Messer v Messer

An appeal against committal for contempt is confined to grounds directed at the committal order. It cannot be used to reopen or challenge the underlying possession order. A prior adjournment pending an appeal against that possession order did not remove jurisdiction where the appeal had been determined before the committal hearing. A judge’s earlier decision against a party did not, without more, establish bias. Procedural delay justified extending the suspension of imprisonment to allow a final opportunity to comply, although the appeal itself was dismissed.

Following the breakdown of the parties’ relationship, Mr Messer obtained possession orders concerning 7 Penhurst, Old Harlow. A further possession order made on 14 March 2002 carried a penal notice. On 19 January 2004, Cambridge County Court committed Mrs Messer to prison for 28 days for contempt after she failed to give possession, suspended for six months, and ordered execution of a warrant.

Mrs Messer appealed against the committal order. She relied on alleged want of jurisdiction, bias, and the asserted unfairness of the underlying possession proceedings. The central issues were whether those matters undermined the committal order and whether the suspension should be extended because related appellate proceedings had caused delay.

1. Appeal dismissed. Lord Justice Waller gave the reasons, and Lord Justice Laws agreed. The appeal could challenge only the order for committal. Mrs Messer had no right in this appeal to attack the possession orders or repeat arguments concerning the fairness of the underlying litigation.
2. The jurisdiction objection failed. The committal hearing took place after the relevant appeal against the possession order had been determined. In any event, the adjournment of the earlier committal application pending that appeal did not deprive the judge of jurisdiction. No jurisdiction objection had been taken before the judge, and the point could not succeed even if it had been raised.
3. The allegation of bias was unsupported. The fact that the judge had previously decided the possession proceedings against Mrs Messer provided no basis, without more, for alleging bias.
4. The further letters relied upon raised matters concerning the original possession orders rather than any ground capable of setting aside the committal order. No sufficient ground of challenge was advanced.
5. Although the appeal had to be dismissed, the court considered it unfair to leave the committal immediately enforceable when delays in the related appellate process had caused the original suspension period to expire. The suspension was therefore extended for six weeks from 19 January 2005. Mrs Messer was given a final opportunity to leave the property, with the committal order becoming effective if she failed to do so. Costs were assessed at £1,900.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the appeal against the committal order, varied the suspension period to expire six weeks from 19 January 2005, and ordered costs of £1,900.
2. Cambridge County Court: HHJ Sennitt made a 28-day committal order for contempt on 19 January 2004, suspended for six months, and ordered execution of a warrant for possession.