Boatwright v Boatwright

A court order requiring vacant possession must be obeyed promptly and fully unless the court orders otherwise. Personal difficulties, including finding accommodation, removing animals, or pursuing claims concerning the property, do not justify prolonged non-compliance where the litigant has had ample time and practical alternatives exist. Complaints about an order cannot ordinarily be revived after reconsideration and refusal of permission to appeal. Where breach is established, the court may grant a short final period for compliance and suspend imprisonment conditionally, but such indulgence is an act of practicality or mercy rather than recognition of merit.

The appellant occupied a jointly owned property formerly shared with the respondent. After the parties’ relationship ended, proceedings concerning the respondent’s share led to an order for sale and vacant possession. The order was reconsidered, extended, made subject to a penal notice, and served, but the appellant remained in occupation.

On 20 May 2010, Swindon County Court committed him to prison for breach of the possession order. He appealed, relying on complaints about the original proceedings, difficulties in obtaining accommodation and removing livestock, and his wish to purchase the property. The central issue was whether those matters justified setting aside or delaying enforcement of the committal order.

Appeal dismissed. Lord Justice Stanley Burnton gave the principal reasons, and Lady Justice Arden agreed with them.

1. The appellant had failed to comply with the order requiring vacant possession despite having had almost a year from the served order of 4 August 2009. His explanations did not justify the breach. Accommodation could be sought from the local authority, and arrangements could be made for the animals.
2. The appellant could not use complaints about the original order as a basis for resisting enforcement. The order had been reconsidered when he applied to set it aside, he had been represented by counsel, and permission to appeal had been refused. He had therefore had a proper opportunity to advance his objections.
3. The proposed equity-release purchase, uncertainty about the respondent’s share, and alleged improvements to the property did not postpone vacant possession. Those matters could have been pursued by an offer or application, and issues concerning shares or improvements could be dealt with in determining the distribution of the sale proceeds.
4. The court was prepared, as a practical measure and by way of mercy rather than merit, to suspend the committal order for a final short period. Vacant possession had to be given by 12 July 2010. If that occurred, the three-month sentence would not be served; otherwise it would take effect. The order was to be served with a penal notice.

The court emphasised that court orders must be complied with promptly and fully unless the court orders otherwise.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — The appeal against the committal order was dismissed. The order was suspended conditionally until 12 July 2010: [2010] EWCA Civ 877.
2. Swindon County Court (HHJ Wade) — On 20 May 2010, the appellant was committed to prison for breach of the order requiring vacant possession.