Wealden District Council v Nadine Amy Strevett

In contempt proceedings, the court may authorise alternative service where personal service has been frustrated and the chosen method is likely to bring the documents to the defendant’s attention. After good service, the court may proceed in the defendant’s absence where the defendant knows of the hearing, has offered no adequate reason for non-attendance, and an adjournment would not provide a reasonable assurance of attendance. The court must weigh the defendant’s rights against the claimant’s and the public interest in timely determination. Breach of an injunction must be proved to the criminal standard, namely that the court is sure. Persistent failure to perform specified restorative obligations may constitute contempt even where one part of the injunction has been complied with.

Wealden District Council, acting as local planning authority, applied to commit Nadine Amy Strevett and Nima Cham for alleged breaches of a final injunction concerning land near Wilmington, East Sussex. The injunction prohibited specified uses and required the removal of hardstanding, hardcore and a track, together with restoration of the affected land.

The defendants did not attend the committal hearing and were not represented. The court therefore determined whether service was effective, whether the hearing should proceed in their absence, and whether the alleged breaches had been proved.

1. Service. The court was satisfied that the injunction and committal documents had been brought to the defendants’ attention by affixing documents to the gates, posting copies under the gate and sending them by email. The second defendant’s removal and rejection of notices did not prevent service. Alternatively, service by those methods was authorised under CPR, r6.15.
2. Absence of the defendants. The court considered the absence of any explanation, the uncertain effect of an adjournment, the absence of evidence that the defendants wished to obtain representation, and the claimant’s and public interest in expeditious resolution. The defendants knew of the hearing and had waived their right to attend. The court therefore proceeded in their absence. A bench warrant under rule 81.7(2) was not appropriate because there was no information as to when it could be executed.
3. Proof of breach. Each allegation had to be proved to the criminal standard, so that the court was sure of the breach. On the undisputed evidence and photographs, the court was sure that the defendants had failed to remove the access hardstanding and associated materials, failed to remove the hardcore and building materials in the identified area, failed to reinstate that area, failed to remove the track and failed to restore the track area.
4. The defendants had complied with the requirement to stop up the access and reinstate the grass verge, but that partial compliance did not answer the remaining breaches. The defendants were guilty of contempt of court. The question of sanction was left for consideration either at the hearing or on another occasion.

Not stated in the judgment. This was a first-instance committal application in the High Court.