Yorkshire Water Services Ltd & Anor v Muziczka

An injunction must be construed according to its terms. A prohibition on informing a claimant’s employee, servant, agent or visitor that access will not be allowed does not, without more, prohibit an abusive email to the claimant’s solicitor announcing an intention to breach another part of the order. Such correspondence may evidence defiance but is not itself contempt under that wording.

Deliberately standing in a road so that a vehicle cannot safely pass breaches a clear prohibition, even where the obstruction is temporary. In sentencing for contempt, the court may consider the harm caused, deliberate defiance, prior threats and conduct, and the need to secure compliance. A 90-day committal order suspended for two years was justified on the vehicle obstruction alone.

Yorkshire Water Services Ltd and Bovis Homes Ltd obtained a permanent injunction restraining Alexander Ivan Muziczka from interfering with access along Storrs Bridge Lane. The injunction followed county court proceedings in which his counterclaim had been struck out and permission to appeal had been refused.

HHJ Robinson later found three contempts: two emails to Yorkshire Water’s solicitor and an incident in which Mr Muziczka stood in the road and prevented a tanker from passing. A committal order for 90 days, suspended for two years, was imposed. The Court of Appeal considered whether the three findings were established and whether the penalty was justified.

Lord Justice Bean gave the judgment of the court, with Lord Justice Henderson agreeing.

1. Scope of the appeal. The injunction was valid and binding. The Court therefore proceeded on the basis that its terms could not be challenged in these contempt proceedings.
2. The emails. The order prohibited informing an employee, servant, agent or visitor of Yorkshire Water that access would not be allowed. The two emails were abusive and stated an intention to obstruct vehicles, but they were sent to the solicitor conducting the litigation. On a proper construction, neither email itself fell within the prohibited conduct. The findings of contempt relating to the emails were set aside.
3. The tanker incident. The injunction expressly prohibited standing in the road so as to prevent a vehicle from passing. By standing in front of the tanker, Mr Muziczka temporarily prevented it from proceeding. The obstruction was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Its temporary nature and the absence of any maintenance-related motive did not prevent it from being a breach.
4. Penalty. The tanker incident alone crossed the custody threshold. Its seriousness included the 28-minute obstruction, the diversion of Yorkshire Water’s employees, the deliberate defiance of a clear order, and the surrounding history of threats and intemperate behaviour. The 90-day committal order, suspended for two years, was therefore amply justified and the appeal against penalty was dismissed.
5. The injunction and extended civil restraint order remained in force. The court warned that a further contempt could result in imprisonment without suspension, together with consecutive activation of the existing suspended term.

• County Court. District Judge Baddeley struck out the counterclaim on 22 March 2018. HHJ Richardson subsequently granted a permanent injunction after trial. Permission to appeal was refused by Martin Spencer J and, on renewal, by Dingemans J.
• County Court contempt proceedings. HHJ Robinson found three contempts and imposed a 90-day committal order suspended for two years.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division). In [2019] EWCA Civ 1598, the court set aside the findings concerning the two emails but upheld the committal penalty for the tanker obstruction.