Bates, R (on the application of) v Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset

An order requiring a person to do an act must specify the time for compliance before it can support committal proceedings for contempt. The immediate effect of an order under Civil Procedure Rules Part 40.7 does not remove that requirement. Where the original order omits a compliance deadline, the defect may be remedied by an application under RSC 45 rule 6(2) for a specified time to be set. Until that occurs, failure to comply with the act requirement does not establish an enforceable committal.

The claimant sought to commit the Chief Constable for failing to return property under an order made after the court had quashed a search warrant. The order required the return of seized items but did not state when compliance had to occur. The claimant obtained permission to commence committal proceedings, and the Chief Constable subsequently complied and gave an undertaking. The central issue was whether the order was enforceable by committal despite the absence of a specified compliance period.

1. Application dismissed. The court held that no enforceable contempt had been established against the Chief Constable.
2. The order of 8 May 2009 took effect immediately under Civil Procedure Rules Part 40.7. It therefore created an immediate obligation to comply with the requirement to return the seized items.
3. That obligation could not, however, be enforced by committal because the order did not specify the time by which the act had to be done. The requirement was substantive as well as technical. A person must know with precision when non-compliance will amount to breach of an order and expose them to imprisonment for contempt.
4. RSC 45 rule 5(1)(a) made the need for a specified time clear. RSC 45 rule 6(2) provided the appropriate means of curing the omission by enabling the court to order that the act be done within a specified time. Such an application should ordinarily be made inter partes before committal proceedings are pursued.
5. The circumstances explaining the omission, including the urgency surrounding settlement of the order, could not cure the defect. The court nevertheless considered it regrettable that proceedings had been required before the Chief Constable complied. There was no order for costs.