Monopro Ltd v Central Hall Developments Ltd & Anor

A court order requiring insurance must be obeyed within the specified time. Difficulties in obtaining access, undertaking remedial works or securing insurance may mitigate a breach, but do not excuse non-compliance without a proper application for more time. Where breaches of undertakings and consent orders continue for a significant period, a fine may be appropriate even after compliance has eventually occurred. Separate contemnors must receive separately assessed fines, which cannot be imposed on a joint and several basis. The court should consider the contemnors’ means and may identify imprisonment in default of payment.

Central Hall Developments Ltd was required by a consent order dated 13 January 2017 to insure a substantial Victorian civic building in accordance with its headlease obligations. Jagtar Singh, its sole director, was also involved in the relevant undertakings and order. The respondents admitted that the insurance had not been obtained by the deadline and apologised, relying on difficulties in accessing parts of the property occupied by a nightclub, the extent of remedial works and the time needed to obtain certificates and insurance.

By the hearing, insurance had been obtained, but only after a substantial delay. The issue was whether the admitted breaches should attract a further sanction and, if so, the appropriate fines for the company and Mr Singh.

1. Sanction for admitted breaches. The respondents had breached both the relevant undertakings and the consent order for a significant period. The later obtaining of insurance was a material mitigating change, but it did not remove the need to mark the breaches by a further sanction. The court therefore imposed fines.
2. Mitigation. The court accepted that access difficulties caused by The Q Club materially affected progress and that the respondents had undertaken work and pursued insurance. Those matters reduced the seriousness of the breach, but did not provide a full explanation for giving undertakings and then consenting to an order which was not complied with. The absence of an application to extend time and the material deficiencies remaining when the committal application was issued were significant.
3. Amount and allocation. The court considered the authorities on fines for contempt, including Westminster City Council v Addbins & Ors, and regarded the present obligations as more serious than the provision of cigarette bins, while accepting that case as indicating the relevant general bracket. A total fine of £7,500 was appropriate. It was divided equally: £3,750 against the company and £3,750 against Mr Singh personally. The fine could not be imposed on a joint and several basis, and the evidence did not justify weighting it more heavily against the company.
4. Default. Under section 139(4) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, each fine fell within the bracket carrying a maximum of three months’ imprisonment for default. The court specified six weeks’ imprisonment in default for each fine. Any term imposed for the company was to be served by Mr Singh as its sole director.

First-instance committal application. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.