Triad Group Plc v Makar

A court may determine contempt allegations in a defendant’s absence where the procedural requirements are satisfied and the defendant has deliberately chosen not to attend despite clear notice and warning. The decision to proceed must reflect the circumstances of the case, including the opportunity given to participate and the absence of good reason for non-attendance.

Determining contempt and imposing punishment are separate decisions. Even where contempt is established in the defendant’s absence, it may be appropriate to adjourn sanction so that the defendant can be heard, reflect on the consequences of continued disobedience and take steps towards compliance.

The claimants applied to commit Mira Makar for contempt of court based on alleged breaches of an injunction arising from earlier proceedings concerning defamatory and harassing communications. The injunction prohibited disparaging or derogatory statements, repetition of specified defamatory allegations and harassment of the claimants.

Makar had notice of the committal hearing but did not attend or seek an adjournment. The court had to decide whether to determine the contempt allegations in her absence, whether she was in contempt, and whether sanction should also be imposed in her absence.

1. The procedural requirements of Civil Procedure Rules 1998, CPR 81, had been met. Applying the factors identified in Sanchez v Oboz [2015] EWHC 235, and with assistance from R v Jones [2001] QB 862 and Oliver v Shaikh [2020] EWHC 2253 (QB), the court proceeded to determine the contempt allegations in Makar’s absence. She had disobeyed a direct order to attend, had been given two months to participate, had been warned that the hearing could proceed without her and had deliberately chosen not to attend.
2. The court was sure that Makar had breached paragraphs 3 to 8 of the injunction in the respects identified in the judgment. The breaches included disparaging and derogatory statements, repetition of defamatory allegations and conduct amounting to harassment, including online publications and one incident of personal contact.
3. Contempt having been determined, sanction was a separate question. Following the reasoning in JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko [2011] EWHC 1613 and Oliver v Shaikh [2020] EWHC 2253 (QB), the court considered it inappropriate to impose punishment in Makar’s absence. The desirability of hearing from her, particularly after arrest when the consequences of her conduct would be concrete, weighed strongly in favour of adjournment.
4. The hearing was adjourned and a warrant for Makar’s arrest was issued. The court noted that arrest would itself prevent further publications alleged to breach the injunction. It also stated that future sanction could be influenced by steps taken to remove offending postings and comply with the injunction.

not stated in the judgment.