The London Borough of Richmond v Trotman

Where a defendant is arrested for an alleged breach of an injunction containing a power of arrest, the court may impose bail conditions where the history of the matter establishes a real prospect of further breaches. Conditions may restrict contact with, or access to, property protected by the injunction. A defendant seeking permission to undertake conduct arguably prohibited by an existing order should apply properly for variation on notice. The court will not ordinarily impose restrictions against the claimant in the claimant’s own application without jurisdiction and a legal basis for doing so.

The claimant had obtained an injunction prohibiting the defendant from mooring or trespassing on specified land and requiring the removal of vessels, including Kupe. The injunction contained a power of arrest.

Following two arrests for alleged breaches, the defendant appeared before the court. The parties agreed that he should be bailed subject to conditions, including attendance at a later interim hearing, non-interference with Kupe, and directions for a potential contempt application. The defendant sought additional conditions permitting wider access to the vessel and restricting the claimant’s access to it.

The issues were whether the agreed conditions should be imposed and whether the defendant’s additional conditions were appropriate.

1. Bail conditions. The court imposed the agreed bail conditions. They included attendance at the interim application on 28 November 2023, a power to issue a warrant if the defendant failed to appear, and a prohibition on approaching, interfering with, or encouraging others to interfere with Kupe, wherever it might be located.
2. Prospect of further breaches. In light of the history of the matter, extending back to 2020, the court was satisfied that there was a real prospect of further breaches if the conditions were not imposed. The conditions were therefore appropriate.
3. Contempt proceedings. The claimant was permitted to issue a contempt application by 4 October 2023. The defendant was to admit or deny the allegations at the listed hearing, with sentencing for admitted allegations and directions for any allegations denied. Costs were reserved.
4. Access to the vessel. The court accepted a saving provision allowing the defendant, escorted by police, to attend the vessel to collect his belongings. It refused permission for wider boarding, even if the assignee authorised it, because such conduct could arguably breach the existing injunction.
5. Variation and restrictions against the claimant. Any wider access should be sought by a properly instituted application to vary the order on notice. The court declined to prohibit the claimant from boarding the vessel, observing that jurisdiction was doubtful and that there was no legal basis for such an order on the application before it.