Gary Taylor & Anor v Michael Andrew Miller

A contempt application may be determined on the respondent’s admissions where the admitted conduct establishes breach of an injunction. A contempt sanction has two functions: securing compliance with the order and punishing past breaches. Where the injunction is achieving compliance, and the breaches do not warrant custody, a fine may be imposed to mark the contempt. The sanction must reflect the history and seriousness of the breaches, the respondent’s assurances of future compliance, and relevant financial circumstances.

The applicants were the respondent’s joint trustees in bankruptcy. Injunctions made by Mr Justice Rajah and Mr Justice Zacaroli restrained the respondent from harassing or communicating directly with protected persons, subject to communication through a nominated solicitor.

After further direct emails and other communications, the respondent was arrested and an application for committal was issued under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 rule 81. The respondent admitted historical breaches, apologised, and sought a fine rather than imprisonment. The central issues were whether contempt was established and what sanction was appropriate.

1. The respondent’s admissions and conduct established breaches of the injunctions made by Mr Justice Rajah and Mr Justice Zacaroli. The court accordingly found him in contempt of court.
2. A contempt sanction performs two principal functions: securing compliance with the court’s order and punishing past breaches. The court must consider the whole history and the purpose of the order when selecting the appropriate sanction.
3. The respondent’s persistent direct communications amounted to the conduct which the injunctions were designed to prevent. Nevertheless, custody was plainly inappropriate because the injunction was serving its purpose, there had been no further breaches since 25 July 2023, and the respondent assured the court of future compliance through the sole point of contact.
4. A financial penalty was still required to mark the admitted contempts. Taking account of the circumstances, including the respondent’s status as a discharged bankrupt, the proper sanction was a fine of £1,000.