Corrigan v Chelsea Football Club Ltd

A respondent to civil committal proceedings is entitled to legal representation, supported by non-means-tested legal aid, where representation is genuinely sought. The court should give a reasonable opportunity to obtain it, but is not required to secure representation for a respondent who persistently refuses to engage with proceedings despite clear notices and repeated advice.

Mental health difficulties do not, without cogent medical evidence linking them to the relevant non-compliance, require an adjournment or excuse contempt. The decision whether to proceed and activate a suspended committal sentence remains discretionary and depends on the respondent’s conduct and the opportunities already provided.

The claimant football club obtained ex parte injunctions and mandatory disclosure orders against the defendant following an alleged unauthorised sale of a match ticket. The orders carried a penal notice and were personally served.

The defendant did not comply, attend hearings, or obtain legal advice despite repeated written advice, including information about criminal legal aid for the committal application. Murray J found him in contempt on 15 July 2019 and imposed a six-month sentence suspended to permit him to purge the contempt. After further non-compliance, the suspension was lifted and the immediate sentence was confirmed on 30 July 2019.

The defendant appealed, relying principally on mental health difficulties, lack of representation, and proposed fresh psychiatric evidence. The central question was whether the judge should have adjourned rather than proceed with the committal process and activate the suspended sentence.

1. The appeal was dismissed unanimously. Murray J was entitled to find contempt, impose a suspended six-month committal sentence, and subsequently activate it. The application to adduce fresh evidence was also refused.

2. Respondents to civil committal proceedings should, where possible, receive legal advice and have access to legal aid. They are entitled to representation where they seek it, and a judge dealing with an unrepresented respondent should make proper enquiry about that issue. That duty has limits. It does not oblige the court or the claimant’s solicitors to ensure independent representation for a respondent who has repeatedly ignored orders, notices, hearing dates, and advice to obtain legal assistance.

3. The authorities concerning a requested adjournment for representation did not govern this case. Unlike the respondent in O (Committal; Legal Representation), the defendant gave no real indication that he wished to be represented or that he was taking steps to obtain representation. The circumstances also materially differed from Brown v London Borough of Haringey, where the respondent had engaged with the process and there was evidence of solicitors pursuing legal aid.

4. The psychiatric evidence did not show that the defendant lacked capacity, was unable to understand the proceedings sufficiently, or could not instruct solicitors. Medical evidence relied on to explain non-attendance or non-participation should address the respondent’s ability to engage in the particular proceedings. This evidence did not do so.

5. On 30 July 2019 the defendant neither sought an adjournment nor displayed contrition or a willingness to purge his contempt. Given his sustained non-engagement and failure to use the opportunity afforded by the suspended sentence, it was a proper exercise of discretion to proceed and activate the sentence.

6. The proposed fresh evidence could have been adduced below and, in any event, did not provide a sufficient justification for the defendant’s conduct.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Dismissed the defendant’s appeal against the committal orders and refused permission to adduce fresh evidence: [2019] EWCA Civ 1964.

• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division Stewart J made ex parte injunctive and mandatory disclosure orders on 15 April 2019. Waksman J continued the orders. Murray J found the defendant in contempt on 15 July 2019, imposed a six-month sentence suspended to permit purging of the contempt, and later activated the sentence after continued non-compliance.