City of Westminster v Addbins Ltd & Ors

A contempt application must identify the alleged breaches with sufficient detail to enable the respondent to meet the case, but the required precision depends on the circumstances. A respondent must comply with an order by its deadline; beginning a substantial task later does not amount to compliance. Contempt requires knowledge of the order, conduct or an omission constituting breach, and knowledge of the facts making that conduct a breach. There is no additional requirement to prove an intention to disobey the order. Impossibility may prevent a finding of contempt where the respondent had no choice, but difficulty or inconvenience is insufficient. A director may be liable where he knowingly fails to take reasonable steps to secure a company's compliance. Committal proceedings may properly be used as a last resort to secure compliance.

Westminster City Council sought committal orders against Addbins Ltd, Addison Lee Plc and Mr John Griffin, together with fines against the companies and imprisonment for Mr Griffin. The application followed an injunction made by Edwards-Stuart J requiring removal, within 14 days, of cigarette bins displaying unauthorised advertisements and prohibiting further unauthorised advertising.

The defendants accepted that the order had not been complied with, but argued that the application notice lacked particularity, compliance was impossible, the proceedings were disproportionate and abusive, and Mr Griffin was not personally liable because the order had not been served on him. The central issues were whether the alleged breaches were sufficiently particularised, whether the necessary mental element and personal responsibility were established, and whether the proceedings should be struck out.

1. Particulars. The application notice, read as a whole and against the known background, gave sufficient information to enable the defendants and Mr Griffin to meet the allegations. It was unnecessary to identify every individual address where the bins remained. The notice itself had to contain the necessary particulars, and the supporting affidavit could not cure a deficiency, but the notice satisfied the sensible and context-dependent test.
2. Contempt. The court applied the elements identified in Masri v Consolidated Contractors Intl Co SARL [2011] EWHC 1024 (Comm): knowledge of the order, conduct or an omission involving breach, and knowledge of the facts making the conduct a breach. It was unnecessary to prove that the defendants intended to breach the order or knew that their conduct was legally wrongful.
3. The defendants knew the order and its deadline, made no serious attempt to organise compliance by 29 June 2012, and could have achieved substantial compliance by committing greater resources and using their database. Their later removal of the bins did not retrospectively answer the charge. Compliance was difficult, but not impossible; the impossibility principle therefore did not apply.
4. Mr Griffin was the responsible director and wilfully failed to take reasonable steps to secure compliance. The court dispensed with personal service of the order because he knew its terms, had legal advice, understood the penal consequences and suffered no prejudice.
5. The committal proceedings were brought for the proper purpose of securing belated compliance and were not an abuse of process. The defendants and Mr Griffin were found to be in contempt of the order.