Lance Jamieson Christie v Weavabel Group Limited

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's challenge to findings of contempt and to the sentence imposed by Cotter J. Key legal principles applied were that undertakings given to the court and settlement terms are enforceable, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights cannot be deployed as a defence to contempt where a valid undertaking has been given, and the court must consider proportionality under Article 10 at the sanctions stage. The judge was entitled to find, to the criminal standard, that the appellant intentionally made the derogatory communications and to draw a limited adverse inference from his failure to give evidence on that issue.

The court also rejected arguments that the proceedings were an abuse of process or pursued for an improper collateral purpose and upheld the sentence of 14 days' custody (replaced by two weeks' imprisonment suspended for one year) as proportionate. The appellate court noted that, had permission to appeal been required on one ground, it would not have been granted.

The appellant, expelled from the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church, had given undertakings in open court as part of a settlement that he would not make derogatory comments about certain family members or about the respondent company. The respondent alleged numerous breaches and pursued contempt proceedings; liability was determined by Cotter J following a liability hearing and a sanctions hearing. The committal related principally to an email of 25 January 2024 which called two of the appellant's sons false witnesses.

Nature of the claim and relief sought:

• Enforcement of undertakings given to the court as part of a settlement and committal proceedings for contempt; the respondent sought sanctions including imprisonment.

Issues framed by the court:

• whether Article 10 could be relied on as a defence to contempt;
• whether the judge was required to undertake an Article 10 proportionality balancing exercise at the sanctions stage;
• whether the requisite mens rea for contempt was proved for the sampled allegations (in particular the 8 January 2024 email);
• whether the proceedings were an abuse of process or brought for an improper collateral purpose; and
• whether the custodial sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

Concise account of the court's reasoning:

• The court followed the approach in Mionis and related authority: where a party has voluntarily entered into a settlement and given undertakings, especially to the court, Article 10 will rarely provide a defence to subsequent contempt proceedings. The judge was entitled to treat the undertaking as a serious, enforceable promise and to prioritise the rights of those protected by it.
• Article 10 remains a consideration at the sanctions stage; the appellate court accepted that the judge had regard to proportionality and to the appellant's Article 10 interests when deciding sentence and that no error of law arose from his approach.
• The judge was entitled to find the necessary intention for the relevant breaches to the criminal standard, and to draw a limited adverse inference from the appellant's failure to give evidence on the issue; the appellant's later statement produced for mitigation could not reopen that earlier finding.
• The argument that the proceedings were pursued for an improper collateral purpose failed: the respondent sought merely to enforce a valid undertaking it had obtained in the earlier proceedings and there was no jurisdictional basis to treat enforcement as an abuse of process in those circumstances.
• On sentence, the judge reasonably treated the 25 January email as more culpable and causing real (though not extreme) harm in context; the custodial sentence (suspended) fell within the reasonable range and was not manifestly excessive.

Procedural posture: appeal from Cotter J (High Court: [2024] EWHC 2298 (KB)) to the Court of Appeal, which heard argument and dismissed all grounds.

The appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal held that the judge below applied the correct legal principles: undertakings given to the court and settlement terms are enforceable and do not permit Article 10 to be used as a defence to contempt; Article 10 must be considered at sentencing but the judge had adequately performed the proportionality assessment; the requisite mens rea was proved to the criminal standard; there was no abuse of process; and the custodial sentence (two weeks, suspended for one year) was within the range of reasonable responses.

The underlying dispute was the subject of a trial before His Honour Judge Gosnell (Leeds) after settlement discussions on 15 November 2023 produced undertakings in open court. Contempt proceedings were determined by Cotter J in the High Court ([2024] EWHC 2298 (KB)), with a liability hearing in July 2024 and a sentence imposed on 1 November 2024. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which handed down judgment on 16 May 2025 ([2025] EWCA Civ 644).