QRS v Beach & Anor

Proceeding with contempt applications in the respondents’ absence is an exceptional course, requiring proper notice, a real opportunity to attend, and consideration of the relevant circumstances. A non-party may incur criminal contempt by deliberately encouraging or assisting a party to breach a court order, or by acting to undermine the court’s purpose in making it. Alleged contempt must be proved to the criminal standard and the applicant is confined to the grounds identified in the application. Court orders remain binding unless set aside, whether or not the respondent considers them appropriate.

The claimant, acting for himself and in a representative capacity for protected individuals, alleged a continuing internet harassment campaign. He applied to commit the first respondent for breaches of an interim injunction made by Slade J and a final order made by Stuart-Smith J. The second respondent, who was not a party to the original harassment claim, was alleged to have aided and abetted breaches of the final order. Neither respondent attended or was represented, despite notification. The court therefore had to determine whether it was proper to proceed in their absence and whether the alleged breaches and non-party involvement were proved.

1. The court was entitled to proceed in the respondents’ absence. They had been notified, had chosen not to attend, and had made no application for an adjournment. The court considered the circumstances identified in Sanchez v Oboz [2015] EWHC 235 (Fam), together with the other authorities cited on proceeding in the absence of a defendant.
2. The claimant was confined to the grounds expressly identified in each committal application. The conduct relied upon had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, whether the contempt was technically civil or criminal in nature.
3. The first respondent breached the interim order by continuing to operate or publish prohibited websites, publishing material identifying protected persons or the claimant’s firm, failing to disclose the information and documents required, and publishing or communicating litigation papers and information derived from them. The breaches were proved to the criminal standard.
4. The interim and final orders remained binding. A respondent’s disagreement with an order did not excuse non-compliance, and neither order had been set aside.
5. A non-party could be liable for criminal contempt where he encouraged or assisted a party to breach an order, or deliberately set out to undermine the intention of the order. The second respondent’s conduct, including operating or contributing to replacement websites and assisting the first respondent’s campaign, established that liability beyond reasonable doubt.
6. Both respondents were found liable for contempt on the grounds alleged. The question of penalties was deferred so that they could make submissions, and any relevant medical evidence could be considered.