Graham Michael Wildin v Forest of Dean District Council

Activation of a suspended committal order is discretionary, not automatic. The judge must consider the contemnor’s past and current position, the gravity and circumstances of the breach, culpability, ability to comply and personal consequences, and decide whether activation is just and proportionate. An appellate court ordinarily reviews rather than rehears the decision. Intervention is limited to an error of principle, material omission, serious procedural irregularity or a plainly wrong decision outside the reasonable range. A later change, such as a sale of property, is relevant only if it bears on whether the order under appeal was wrong or unjust.

The appellant had constructed a sports and leisure building without planning permission. Following an enforcement notice and an injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, he was made subject to a suspended committal order for contempt after failing to comply with required works.

On 12 August 2022, the High Court activated the suspended six-week sentence after finding that the appellant had failed to decommission the building’s services and had completed only a minority of the required soft-stripping works. The appellant appealed, arguing that the judge had failed to take account of his compliance efforts and alleged obstacles. The central issue was whether the activation decision was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity.

Appeal dismissed. Lord Justice Holroyde gave the judgment, with Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing and Lord Justice Warby agreeing.

1. Under section 14 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and rule 81.29(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the judge had power to impose a fixed custodial term and to suspend it on specified terms. Activation following breach was not automatic. Applying Villiers v Villiers [1994] 1 WLR 493, the judge had to exercise a discretion by considering the past and current situation, the gravity of the breach and the available sentencing options.
2. The appeal was governed by section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 and CPR rule 52.21. It was ordinarily a review of the lower court’s decision. Following Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited v Zafar [2019] 1 WLR 3833, intervention in a value judgment involving the weighing of several factors was limited to an error of principle, reliance on an immaterial factor, failure to consider a material factor, serious procedural irregularity or a plainly wrong decision outside the reasonable range.
3. The High Court judge correctly directed himself that activation had to be just and proportionate. He considered the appellant’s significant and continuing disobedience, his ability and financial means to comply, his intention to persist, his age and personal circumstances, and the adverse consequences of imprisonment. The findings were supported by the evidence and were not properly challenged.
4. The later sale of the building did not bear on whether the order made in August 2022 was wrong or unjust, although it might raise issues in future proceedings. The appellant had been given ample time to comply, had made little effective effort, and had failed to complete most requirements. The judge was entitled to activate the six-week sentence in full.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [2023] EWCA Civ 366: appeal dismissed.
• High Court — 12 August 2022: suspended six-week committal sentence activated for failure to comply with the required decommissioning and soft-stripping works.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [2021] EWCA Civ 1610: earlier appeal dismissed; the compliance period was extended to 10 March 2022.
• High Court — 25 June 2021: six-week sentence imposed for contempt, suspended for 12 months subject to compliance conditions.
• High Court — 26 October 2018: injunction granted requiring compliance with the planning enforcement notice.