Ruth Davies v Paul Lettington & Anor

In civil committal proceedings, a defendant who wants legal representation must receive an accurate explanation of that right and a reasonable opportunity to obtain it. Save in extreme urgency, an unrepresented defendant should normally receive an adjournment. The right does not depend on the defendant’s perceived litigation competence, and the court should not speculate that representation would have made no difference. Legal aid for civil committal proceedings is criminal legal aid and is not means-tested. The right applies at the breach stage as well as the sanction stage.

Mrs Davies, the freehold owner of a farm, was subject to an injunction obtained by the Lettingtons following a boundary and right-of-way dispute. After alleged non-compliance, the County Court found her in breach on 19 June 2025 while she was unrepresented, and adjourned the question of sanction. She appealed, arguing that the judge had wrongly refused an adjournment to allow her to obtain publicly funded legal representation and had misunderstood the availability of legal aid. The central issues were whether an adjournment was required and whether the representation safeguards applied to findings of breach as well as sanction.

1. Disposition. The appeal was allowed. The orders made following the hearings of 19 June and 28 July 2025, and the findings of breach, were set aside. The committal application was remitted to the County Court for hearing by a different judge.
2. Representation and adjournment. The Court applied the principles in Hammerton v Hammerton [2007] EWCA Civ 248, Brown v London Borough of Haringey [2015] EWCA Civ 483 and O (Committal: Legal Representation) [2019] EWCA Civ 1721. A defendant who wants representation is entitled to it, and the court must make appropriate enquiries and provide an opportunity to obtain it. Save in extreme urgency, an adjournment should be granted. The exceptional circumstances illustrated by Corrigan v Chelsea Football Club Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1964 were absent.
3. Legal aid. Under the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 and the relevant regulations, civil committal proceedings are treated as criminal legal aid proceedings. Representation in County Court committal proceedings is not means-tested. The relevant determining authority is the Director of Legal Aid Casework. The Court preferred the analysis in All England Lawn Tennis Club v McKay [2019] EWHC 3065 (QB) to the contrary view in King’s Lynn and West Norfolk Council v Burning [2015] EWHC 3390 (QB).
4. Application to the facts. Mrs Davies had made clear that she wanted representation and had described attempts to obtain it. No extreme urgency was established. The judge’s uncertainty about the availability of non-means-tested legal aid caused a legal error that vitiated his discretion. Her perceived ability to conduct the earlier trial, the asserted delay, and the lack of further detail about her enquiries could not justify refusal. If further detail was required, the judge should have sought it.
5. Breach stage. Findings of breach form an essential part of proceedings amounting to a criminal charge for Article 6 purposes. The representation safeguards therefore apply before both breach and sanction are determined. The Court also declined to speculate whether representation would have altered the result, consistent with Hammerton and the approach to appeal identified in Business Mortgage Finance 4 plc v Hussain [2022] EWCA Civ 1264.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — In [2026] EWCA Civ 364, the appeal was allowed, the relevant orders and breach findings were set aside, and the committal application was remitted to the County Court before a different judge.
2. County Court at Swansea — HHJ James found Mrs Davies in breach of an injunction on 19 June 2025 and adjourned sanction. Orders made following a further hearing on 28 July 2025 were also set aside on appeal.