Webb & Anor v Markos & Anor

A committal order for breach of a possession order is appropriate where the order, bearing a penal notice, was duly served and the breach is established as a straightforward failure to give possession. The court must also be satisfied that no procedural or substantive reason prevents committal. A stay granted pending determination of an application for permission to appeal ends when permission is refused, unless a further order maintains it. A temporary suspension of committal may properly provide a final opportunity to comply and allow practical arrangements to be made, including welfare arrangements, but continued non-compliance may justify enforcement.

The appellants, Mrs Markos and her son, occupied property purchased by Mr Webb and Mr McDonald after enforcement of a charging order and an order for sale. The Southend County Court made an order for possession on 13 October 2010. Permission to appeal was refused, and a later stay pending that application consequently ended.

After a penal notice was attached and served, the appellants failed to give possession. On 15 June 2011, HHJ Murfitt committed them to prison for 14 days for breach of the possession order, suspending enforcement until 28 June. Both appellants appealed. The central issues were whether the possession order remained enforceable, whether the committal application had been properly served, and whether there was any procedural or substantive basis for setting aside the committal order.

1. Appeals dismissed. Lloyd LJ delivered the judgment of the court, and Rix LJ agreed.
2. The possession order was in force. The stay granted pending the application for permission to appeal had ended when permission was refused. The refusal applied to both appellants, and there was no basis for treating any appeal or stay as outstanding.
3. The committal application and supporting evidence had been duly served. The correspondence from the appellants demonstrated their awareness of the hearing and the application. The grounds advanced against committal disclosed no procedural or substantive reason why the order should not have been made.
4. The contempt consisted of the simple failure to comply with a possession order served with a penal notice. In those circumstances, committal was an appropriate enforcement measure. The judge below had sensibly suspended enforcement for a limited period, both to provide a final opportunity for voluntary compliance and to allow social services time to prepare for the consequences of enforcement.
5. The continued occupation meant that the suspended order had to be enforced. Both appeals against the committal order were dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 8 July 2011, Lloyd LJ dismissed both appeals against the committal order; Rix LJ agreed. [2011] EWCA Civ 1564.
2. Southend County Court: On 15 June 2011, HHJ Murfitt committed the appellants to prison for 14 days for breach of the possession order, suspending enforcement until 28 June 2011.