Taylor-Forrest v Owen & Anor

A party must obey an order requiring publication of a retraction where the party’s defence to the underlying libel claim has been struck out and the order has not been successfully appealed. It is no answer to contend that the prohibited material is true or that the party should have been allowed to defend the claim. An unappealed order remains binding until set aside. Disobedience without valid excuse may justify committal. Suspension of imprisonment does not suspend the obligation to comply, and continued contempt may expose the contemnor to a heavier sentence.

The applicant had defended libel proceedings brought by the respondents, but his defence was struck out by Master Eyre. Burton J subsequently ordered him to publish a retraction on two websites. The order was later modified by Maddison J, and Jack J made a suspended committal order following the applicant’s disobedience.

The applicant appealed against Burton J’s order and sought permission to file an appellant’s notice out of time concerning the suspended committal order. He argued that the published allegations were true and that he should not have been prevented from defending them. The central issue was whether those arguments entitled him to resist the existing court orders.

1. Disposition. The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals. The application for permission to file an appellant’s notice out of time was refused.
2. Binding effect of the orders. The striking-out order made by Master Eyre had not been successfully appealed. It therefore remained effective. Burton J was entitled to make the consequential order requiring the applicant to publish a retraction. That order imposed an absolute and unqualified obligation to comply.
3. Truth was no answer. The applicant could not go behind the striking-out order or resist the retraction order by asserting that the allegations were true. His disagreement with the earlier procedural decision did not authorise continued publication or disobedience. Repeating the allegations aggravated his contempt rather than providing a defence to it.
4. Committal and suspension. No valid or coherent excuse for non-compliance had been advanced. Jack J had taken a merciful course by suspending the committal order, but the suspension did not remove or qualify the obligation to obey Burton J’s order. Continued defiance properly led to the applicant’s incarceration.
5. Further warning. Lord Justice Munby emphasised that the order remained in full force. If continuing contempt were proved on a further application, a significantly heavier sentence could be imposed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the applicant’s appeals and refused permission to file an appellant’s notice out of time.
2. High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division: Burton J made an order dated 4 June 2009 requiring publication of a retraction. Maddison J later altered the penal notice, and Jack J made a suspended committal order following disobedience.
3. Earlier procedural order: Master Eyre struck out the applicant’s defence to the libel proceedings. That order was not appealed.