Runnymede Borough Council, R (on the application of) v Fulke-Grenville

In committal proceedings engaging personal liberty, the court must ensure proper legal process before deciding whether to commit a defendant who does not attend. An adjournment may be appropriate where the defendant’s absence requires further opportunity for attendance or explanation, but informal and unspecific requests do not entitle a defendant to frustrate proceedings indefinitely. The court may proceed in the defendant’s absence at a later hearing if he fails to attend without an adequate explanation. Where ordinary service has repeatedly proved difficult, substituted service at the defendant’s property may be ordered.

Runnymede Borough Council applied to commit Christopher Fulke-Grenville for alleged continuing breaches of an injunction made by Mr Justice Jowitt on 10 October 1996. The council also sought to amend the terms of that order. The alleged breaches concerned the use of the defendant’s property for parking, storing and selling motor vehicles, and obstructing the adjacent highway.

The defendant had been properly served but did not attend. He had sent several informal letters seeking adjournments, citing business commitments, family events, illness and bereavement. The court considered whether to make an immediate committal order in his absence and how the proceedings should be progressed.

1. The committal application was adjourned. The council’s evidence disclosed a strong prima facie case of continuing breaches, but the court was not prepared to make an immediate committal order in the defendant’s absence. The personal liberty implications of committal made proper legal process particularly important.
2. The defendant was not entitled to frustrate the claimant by failing to attend. His informal requests for adjournments were notably unspecific as to his whereabouts, work and family circumstances. The court adjourned the hearing for seven days, rather than until the date requested by the defendant, so that the matter could be dealt with fairly and promptly.
3. The defendant was warned that he must attend the next hearing. If he failed to do so, that failure would not itself prevent the court from proceeding with the committal application. The court might regard the conduct as manipulative, particularly in light of the history described in the evidence.
4. The claimant was given liberty to apply for the costs of the hearing. On the council’s application, and because of repeated difficulty serving the defendant, permission was granted for substituted service at 35 Liberty Rise, Addlestone, Surrey.

Not an appeal. The judgment records an application for committal and amendment of an injunction made by Mr Justice Jowitt on 10 October 1996.