Greetham v Greetham

An appeal from committal for contempt may include closely connected ancillary decisions that directly bear on committal, although permission is required for those ancillary decisions. Fresh evidence is admitted where the interests of justice require it; reasonable diligence remains relevant, but materiality is more important. Apparent bias is assessed by asking whether a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias.

A court-directed sale of land must be distinguished from permission for a party to bid. An immediate sale to one party is draconian and unusual and requires extreme care. A committal sentence will not be disturbed where the judge considered the relevant mitigation and imposed a sentence within the available discretion.

The appeal arose from a bitter dispute concerning the winding-up of a farming partnership and related matrimonial proceedings. The County Court at Lincoln had previously ordered the sale of partnership assets, including Catlins Farm, and had made an Unless Order requiring compliance. Following admitted continuing breaches, HH Judge Rogers committed Andrew Greetham to prison for four months, with a further concurrent month for partial breaches.

Andrew sought permission to appeal against the dismissal of applications for judicial recusal and for an order allowing him to acquire Catlins Farm directly. He also appealed against the committal sentence and sought to adduce extensive further evidence. The central issues were the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction, apparent bias, the distinction between permission to bid and a direct sale, procedural fairness, and the proper approach to fresh evidence and sentencing on a contempt appeal.

1. Jurisdiction and evidence. Section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 gave the contemnor a right of appeal against committal to prison. The jurisdiction also extended to ancillary decisions made in the context of committal where they had a direct bearing on whether committal was appropriate or what sanction should be imposed, although permission to appeal was required for those decisions. On fresh evidence, the ultimate question was whether admission was required in the interests of justice. Reasonable diligence remained relevant, but was less important than whether the evidence could materially affect the outcome or demonstrate that the decision was wrong. The transcripts were admitted; the other documents were refused as irrelevant or unhelpful.
2. Recusal. The applicable test, stated in Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67, [2002] 2 AC 357, was whether a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias. The complaints were principally disagreement with adverse decisions, unsupported allegations about remarks, or criticism of case management. They did not satisfy the test. Permission to appeal was refused and the application was certified totally without merit.
3. Permission to bid. Rule 40.16 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 permits a court-directed sale of land. It does not convert an application for permission to bid into a right to have the property sold directly to the applicant. A direct sale to one party is draconian and unusual and requires extreme care: Kotak v Kotak [2014] EWHC 3121 (Ch). Andrew was entitled to bid in the open-market sale, but his application in substance sought a preferential sale at a disputed valuation and was properly refused.
4. Committal sentence. The judge was entitled to proceed on the evidence before him and to refuse a late adjournment for further medical evidence. He considered Andrew’s age, physical and mental health, alleged Covid infections, family circumstances, the pandemic and other mitigation. The sentence was within the range of decisions open to him. The lack of prior instructions to counsel did not create procedural unfairness because Andrew had deliberately limited counsel’s instructions, counsel remained to assist, and the judge allowed time for instructions and mitigation. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

1. County Court at Lincoln: HH Judge Rogers made the committal order on 8 December 2021, dismissed the recusal and Permission to Bid applications, and imposed custodial sentences for continuing contempt of court.
2. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): permission to appeal against the ancillary decisions was refused, both applications were certified totally without merit, and the appeal against the committal sentence was dismissed.