WIGAN COUNCIL v CHRISTOPHER LOVETT

In a contempt application based on breach of an injunction, the court must determine the alleged breaches afresh and prove them to the criminal standard. An injunction must be obeyed while it remains in force, even if the respondent considers it unlawful or wrongly made; the proper course is to seek its discharge or variation. For a nuisance or annoyance prohibition, presence or conduct alone is insufficient. The applicant must prove that the conduct caused, or was likely to cause, the prohibited consequence. The court must scrutinise witness impressions carefully where the evidence does not directly establish the level or effect of the alleged noise.

Wigan Council applied to commit Christopher Lovett for contempt of court, alleging breaches of an anti-social behaviour injunction made in 2015 and varied subsequently. The injunction prohibited conduct causing or likely to cause nuisance, annoyance, alarm or distress and prohibited Mr Lovett from being at his home between 6.00 pm and 9.00 am.

Two applications were heard together. One allegation was withdrawn. Mr Lovett represented himself and challenged the lawfulness of the injunction, the Council’s choice of remedy, and the timing of some allegations. The central issues were whether the court could revisit the validity of the injunction, whether the later allegations constituted an abuse of process, and whether the alleged breaches had been proved.

1. Applicable approach. The court adopted the procedural safeguards summarised in Re Oddin [2016] EWCA Civ 173, including clarity as to the alleged contempt, the criminal standard of proof, the respondent’s rights to representation and silence, and sufficiently precise findings.
2. Validity of the injunction. Applying Chuck v Cremer (1846) Cooper temp. Cott. 205, 338 and Johnson v Walton [1990] 1 FLR 350, the court held that an order of a court with jurisdiction must be obeyed while it remains in force, whether or not the respondent believes it irregular, void or wrongly granted. Any challenge had to be made to the court by appeal or an application for discharge. The court therefore had no jurisdiction in these committal proceedings to determine whether the injunction was lawful or compatible with Convention rights.
3. Abuse of process. Some allegations could have been raised at an earlier committal hearing. However, refusal to entertain them required an abuse of process, and that contention was not reasonably arguable on the evidence.
4. Paragraph 1 allegations. The Council had to prove, so that the court was sure, conduct causing or likely to cause nuisance, annoyance, alarm or distress. Mere presence, closing windows or doors, or conduct shown on video did not establish the required consequence. The absence of reliable direct evidence of the level of noise required careful scrutiny of the witnesses’ subjective impressions. No breach of paragraph 1 was proved.
5. Paragraph 5 allegations and outcome. The court was sure that Mr Lovett had been within the prohibited area on 21 identified occasions. The applications therefore succeeded in part. Allegation 13 was withdrawn, and no separate committal sentence or costs order was stated in the judgment.