Lance Jamieson Christie v Weavabel Group Limited

Article 10 cannot provide a defence to civil contempt where a party has freely undertaken to the court, with legal advice, not to make derogatory comments, the undertaking is unchallenged, and breach is proved. At the sanctions stage, the court must consider Article 10 proportionality if raised, but that assessment ordinarily overlaps with ordinary sentencing proportionality. Enforcing the undertaking may protect the reputation and rights of others, settlement finality and the authority of the court. A custodial sanction is not automatically excluded. In assessing harm, the court may draw an obvious inference from the nature and circumstances of derogatory statements. General evidence about an organisation’s practices does not establish abuse of process where proceedings simply enforce a valid undertaking.

The appellant had given the respondent an undertaking, as part of a settlement, not to make derogatory comments about the respondent and specified family members. The High Court found him guilty of 13 of 16 sampled contempts arising from emails and a video, and sentenced him to two weeks’ imprisonment suspended for one year.

He appealed on grounds concerning Article 10, mens rea, improper collateral purpose and sentence. The Court of Appeal considered whether Article 10 could answer liability for contempt, whether the alleged breaches and harm were proved, whether enforcement was abusive, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

Coulson LJ gave the principal judgment. Arnold LJ agreed, and Warby LJ agreed with the dismissal of all pursued grounds while adding comments on Article 10.

1. Article 10 and liability. The appellant correctly conceded that Article 10 could not provide a defence to liability for contempt. Mionis v Democratic Press SA established that an enforceable settlement term restricting specified comments could defeat an Article 10 defence. The present case was stronger because the appellant had also given an unchallenged undertaking directly to the court. His freedom to criticise the PBCC remained intact, but did not extend to derogatory comments about his family.
2. Sanction and proportionality. If Article 10 is raised at a sanctions hearing, the judge should consider its proportionality requirements. That exercise will usually overlap with ordinary assessment of the proportionality of the sanction. It does not automatically preclude custody. Here, the comments were unnecessary to the appellant’s campaign, the undertaking had been freely given with legal advice, and enforcement protected the family members’ rights, settlement finality and the authority of the court. The custodial threshold was therefore properly found to have been crossed.
3. Mens rea and permission. Permission was required to challenge findings concerning contempts for which no committal order was made. Permission would have been refused because the judge was entitled to infer intention from the deliberate sending of the email and hyperlinks and the repeated nature of the comments. A later sentencing statement could not reopen that anterior finding, which was res judicata.
4. Abuse of process. The enforcement proceedings vindicated a valid undertaking and were not shown to pursue an improper collateral purpose. Subjective motive was irrelevant where the contempt application complied with procedure, was properly arguable and objectively drew alleged serious contempt to the court’s attention. General evidence about the PBCC did not address the specific alleged contempts.
5. Sentence. Some harm was an obvious inference from calling the appellant’s sons liars and false witnesses. R v Chall was distinguishable because it concerned severe or serious psychological harm. The anti-social behaviour guidelines were used only as assistance and with care. The suspended two-week sentence was within the judge’s discretion and was not manifestly excessive.

The appeal was dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2025] EWCA Civ 644, the appeal was dismissed.
• High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division: In [2024] EWHC 2298 (KB), Cotter J found the appellant guilty of 13 of 16 sampled contempts and sentenced him to two weeks’ imprisonment suspended for one year.