London Borough of Lambeth & Ors v Pead

In contempt proceedings arising from breaches of an injunction, the applicant must prove each breach to the criminal standard. An order which has not been set aside or appealed must be obeyed until discharged, even where the defendant believes it was improperly obtained. Procedural defects in a committal application may be cured where no prejudice is caused and the requirements of justice are satisfied. A purported apology will not purge contempt if it is conditional or fails clearly to accept responsibility for the breaches proved. The court may order the costs of justified contempt proceedings separately from the underlying claim.

The claimants sought committal of the defendant for breaches of injunctions made in related harassment and privacy proceedings. The injunctions prohibited publication of specified material, contact with identified persons and harassment. The defendant argued that the injunctions were void because the initial order was made without adequate notice and through alleged abuse of process. He also denied responsibility for various internet postings and challenged the procedure by which committal was sought.

The court had previously found specified breaches proved and sentenced the defendant to 28 days’ imprisonment. This judgment gave reasons for those findings, considered the defendant’s later application to purge his contempt, and determined costs.

1. Committal application. The defect in the application notice, namely the omission of the prescribed penal notice, was cured by sending the defendant the required notice by email. No prejudice had been caused, and the interests of justice required the application to be treated as validly served. The court applied Nicholls v Nicholls [1997] 1 WLR 314.
2. Effect of the injunctions. The orders had not been appealed against or set aside. They therefore had to be obeyed until discharged, regardless of the defendant’s belief that they were void or improperly obtained. The court relied on Ketley v Brent [2012] EWCA Civ 324.
3. Proof of breach. The burden lay on the claimants, and each alleged breach had to be proved to the criminal standard. On the evidence, the defendant controlled the sale of the book in practical terms, had sent or caused threatening communications, and was responsible for the relevant website postings. The selected breaches were proved beyond the required standard.
4. Purge of contempt. The defendant’s written apology was qualified in oral submissions by continued denial of responsibility for some breaches. It was therefore conditional and insufficiently clear to justify a declaration that the contempt had been purged. The court noted an improvement in attitude but made no such declaration.
5. Disposition and costs. The contempt findings and 28-day custodial sentence previously imposed were maintained. The claimants were awarded the costs of the contempt hearings, summarily assessed at £21,601.60 and £2,747.60, payable within 28 days.