Bristol & West Investments Plc v Tompkins

An order committing a person for contempt may be upheld where the underlying order was clear, the person had been given a further opportunity to comply, and the breach remained deliberate and continuing. The court may leave execution of the committal order to the court that made it, particularly where practical arrangements require supervision. A serious adverse consequence of enforcement does not excuse deliberate non-compliance where the contemnor refuses the cooperation needed to avoid it.

The claimant sought possession of mortgaged land occupied by livestock belonging to the defendant and his wife. An order made by Oxford County Court on 18 January 2006 required the livestock to be removed. An application to set that order aside was dismissed on 15 February 2006.

On 24 May 2006, the county court ordered the defendant’s committal to prison unless he removed the cattle by 4pm on 7 June. He did not comply and appealed. The Court of Appeal initially adjourned the matter on 16 June because he might not have had adequate notice or time to prepare. The central issue was whether the committal order should be upheld and implemented despite the consequences for the cattle.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal upheld the committal order made by Oxford County Court on 24 May 2006. The defendant had not removed the cattle and had taken no steps to remedy the breach.
2. The defendant’s refusal to produce the cattle passports meant that removal might lead to the cattle being slaughtered. That consequence was serious, but it did not prevent enforcement. The defendant had repeatedly understood the position and had chosen to prefer that consequence to cooperation with the court’s order.
3. The court was entitled to treat the continuing non-compliance as deliberate and flagrant. The earlier order requiring removal of the livestock remained operative, and the defendant had been given additional time before the committal order took effect.
4. Rather than commit the defendant directly from the Court of Appeal, the more appropriate course was for execution of the order to be supervised by Oxford County Court, where the order had been made. Any later application for release on terms following genuine cooperation would be for that court to determine.

Lord Justice Sedley agreed with Lord Justice Buxton’s proposed disposal and reasons. The formal order was: appeal dismissed.

1. Oxford County Court: His Honour Judge Charles Harris QC ordered removal of the livestock on 18 January 2006, dismissed the application to set aside that order on 15 February 2006, and on 24 May 2006 ordered committal to prison unless the defendant complied by 7 June 2006.
2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 16 June 2006 the court adjourned the committal appeal because the defendant might not have had full notice or sufficient time to prepare. On 26 June 2006 it dismissed the appeal and upheld the committal order.