Premier Marinas Limited v Nick Roberts

A person may be found in contempt where a court order requiring a specified act was duly served, the person knew its terms and penal consequences, and deliberately failed to comply by the stipulated deadline. Continued non-compliance and failure to engage with the contempt process may aggravate sentence. Belated compliance or an amicable resolution may mitigate sentence. The court may proceed in the defendant’s absence where it is satisfied that the defendant knew of the hearing and had been given a proper opportunity to attend. A sentencing hearing may be adjourned after contempt has been established, with a bench warrant contemplated to secure attendance where necessary.

The claimant applied to commit the defendant for contempt of court. In the underlying proceedings, Admiralty Registrar Davison entered judgment for a debt and costs and made a final mandatory injunction requiring the defendant to remove his vessel, BRIGHTHELM, from Brighton Marina by 4 pm on 10 July 2024.

The defendant did not remove the vessel. His engagement with the proceedings was sporadic. After an earlier hearing was adjourned to allow for any possible misunderstanding about attendance, the issue before the court was whether he had knowingly disobeyed the mandatory injunction and, if so, how the matter should proceed.

1. Contempt established. The order of Admiralty Registrar Davison had been duly served. The defendant knew its existence and terms, understood the penal notice and the risk of contempt, and knowingly failed to remove the vessel by the deadline or thereafter. The court was sure that the defendant was guilty of contempt.
2. Proceeding in absence. The defendant had been given repeated notice of the hearings and every reasonable opportunity to attend. The court was therefore satisfied that it was appropriate to determine the contempt application in his absence.
3. Sentencing. The matter was adjourned for sentence. If the defendant removed the vessel or reached an amicable resolution concerning the vessel and underlying debt before sentencing, that would be a mitigating factor. Continued disobedience and failure to engage with the process would likely aggravate sentence.
4. Attendance at sentencing. A sentencing hearing was provisionally fixed for 4 February 2025. The order would provide that, absent confirmation of attendance by the specified date, or if the defendant indicated that he might not attend, the court was likely to issue a bench warrant pursuant to CPR 81.7(2).

The judgment describes the prior proceedings before Admiralty Registrar Davison, who on 19 June 2024 entered judgment for the claimant and made the mandatory injunction requiring removal of the vessel by 10 July 2024. The present court determined the subsequent committal application and adjourned sentencing. The order recited the defendant’s right in principle to appeal without permission to the Court of Appeal.