Alison White v Plymouth City Council

Contempt may interfere with the due administration of justice even before proceedings exist. Permission requires a strong prima facie case and, where applicable, a public-interest basis. Evidence that a public authority acted rapidly to avoid protest, rather than to prevent access to the court, will not satisfy that threshold.

Committal proceedings are an abuse of process where any breach is merely technical, has no real prospect of success, or serves no legitimate enforcement purpose. Aarhus costs protection may cover contempt proceedings enforcing an environmental injunction made in, or in anticipation of, judicial review proceedings, even where the substantive claim has become academic.

The claimant challenged the Council’s conduct in deciding to fell trees as part of a redevelopment scheme and in implementing that decision rapidly. An interim injunction was granted by Freedman J in the early hours of 15 March 2023, after works had begun. The claimant subsequently commenced judicial review proceedings, which were dismissed as academic after the decision was revoked and a new scheme approved: [2024] EWHC 965 (Admin).

The claimant then sought permission to pursue contempt proceedings alleging interference with access to justice and breach of the injunction. She also sought retrospective dispensation from personal service and costs protection under the Aarhus Convention. The central issues were whether either contempt ground should proceed, whether the injunction claim was abusive, and whether the proceedings attracted Aarhus costs protection.

1. Ground One. The court accepted that contempt involving interference with the due administration of justice can occur before proceedings have been commenced. The permission threshold under CPR rule 81.3(5) required a strong prima facie case; the public-interest requirement also applied. The claimant failed to establish that threshold. The Council’s use of its urgency procedure, delayed publication and correspondence did not provide a strong prima facie case that it intended to impede access to the court. The evidence more plausibly demonstrated an intention to avoid public protest and address safety concerns. Permission was therefore refused.
2. Ground Two. Applying the approach in Sectorguard plc v Dienne plc [2009] EWHC 2693 (Ch), the court held that proceeding with the committal application would be an abuse of process. The evidence disclosed no real prospect of proving anything beyond a technical breach. There was no positive evidence that trees were felled, or preparatory works undertaken, after the injunction was communicated. The unexplained eight-month delay in issuing the contempt application was a further reason for dismissal. The application was struck out and dismissed. It was unnecessary to determine definitively whether personal service should be retrospectively dispensed with.
3. Costs protection. CPR rule 46.24 requires a claim to be brought by judicial review or statutory review and to fall within Article 9(1), 9(2) or 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention. An injunction application made in anticipation of judicial review proceedings satisfied those requirements. Contempt proceedings enforcing such an injunction also fell within the Convention because unenforceable environmental injunctions would not provide adequate and effective remedies under Article 9(4). This remained so even though the substantive proceedings had become academic and enforcement would not produce a direct environmental benefit in the particular case. The claimant therefore received Aarhus costs protection retrospectively for the whole claim.