Lait v Williams & Anor

An application for committal for breach of a court undertaking is quasi-criminal. The breach must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the undertaking must be clear. An inadvertent breach may nevertheless constitute a technical breach, although intention is relevant to penalty. Ambiguities in an undertaking are resolved in favour of the person who gave it, but the court should not manufacture ambiguity. The scope of an undertaking concerning business operations extends to connected activities which are noisy, dirty or capable of causing the nuisance underlying the proceedings. Quiet administrative or preparatory activities are outside its scope. Penalty must be proportionate to the nature and extent of the breach. Imprisonment was inappropriate; a modest fine and proportionate costs order were imposed.

The claimant brought a nuisance claim against neighbouring property owners whose car-repair business operated from a workshop and greenhouse. During case management, the first defendant undertook that the business operations would be confined to the workshop and carried out only between 9 am and 5 pm on weekdays. The nuisance trial was adjourned while planning permission for a rebuilt workshop was pursued.

The claimant later applied to commit the first defendant for alleged breaches, including weekend working, work outside the permitted hours and work outside the workshop. On the first day of the hearing, he also sought to add numerous later allegations and supporting evidence. The court refused those late amendments and determined the original allegations.

1. Late evidence and amendments. The application to amend the committal claim and introduce material concerning later allegations was refused. Under paragraph 10 of the Practice Direction accompanying RSC Order 52, the amendments could be allowed only if they caused no injustice. Their admission would have required an adjournment and prejudiced the defendant.
2. Applicable standard. Committal proceedings are quasi-criminal. A breach must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Where the alleged breach concerns an undertaking, the undertaking must be clear and the breach beyond all question. An inadvertent breach is not thereby excluded from the scope of a technical breach, although whether the breach was deliberate or inadvertent is relevant to penalty.
3. Meaning of operations. The undertaking was not ambiguous. “Operations” covered activities arising out of or connected with the car-repair business which had triggered, or might trigger, nuisance allegations. It therefore included noisy or dirty activities such as moving vehicles, revving engines and refurbishment work connected with the workshop. It excluded quiet activities such as working on papers or answering the telephone.
4. Findings. Three instances of weekend working were proved beyond reasonable doubt. The allegations based on the CCTV footage and alleged work outside 9 am to 5 pm were otherwise rejected. Four instances of working outside the workshop were established, but those breaches were inadvertent and technical.
5. Penalty and costs. Imprisonment would have been disproportionate and inappropriate. A fine of £500 was imposed, payable by 4 pm on 20 April 2006. The defendant was ordered to pay 50 per cent of the claimant’s costs of the committal application. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs of the failed amendment application, with costs assessed on the standard basis if not agreed.

Not an appeal. The judgment determined an interlocutory committal application arising during an adjourned nuisance claim. The underlying nuisance action remained to be tried.