Richard Wood & Anor v Sophie Fleming

A committal appeal cannot ordinarily be used to reopen unappealed injunctions or findings of breach. Where an appellant challenges only the sanction, the appellate question is whether it fell within the reasonable range available to the judge. An order must be obeyed unless and until set aside, even if alleged to be ultra vires. Procedural defects in a contempt application do not automatically establish unfairness. The court must consider actual notice, opportunity to defend, knowledge of procedural rights, the ability to seek an adjournment and the reason for non-attendance. Orders under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 may have an independent jurisdictional basis from related company or probate proceedings.

Sophie Fleming appealed as of right against a committal order made by HHJ Tindal, sitting as a High Court judge. The order imposed suspended terms of imprisonment for 23 breaches of an injunction obtained by the executors of the deceased's estate and four breaches of a later injunction obtained by interim administrators.

The appellant did not challenge the underlying injunctions, the findings of breach or the sanctions. She nevertheless argued that the High Court lacked jurisdiction, that the underlying orders were unlawful, and that the administrators' committal application was procedurally unfair because required information was omitted from the original application notice and supplied shortly before the hearing. The central issues were the permissible scope of the committal appeal and whether the hearing had been procedurally fair. The appeal was from the order reported at [2026] EWHC 490 (Ch).

1. Disposition. The appeal was dismissed. The appellant had not challenged the findings that she breached the executors' injunction, and none of her grounds challenged the sanctions. Those sanctions were plainly within the reasonable range available to the judge.
2. Scope of the appeal. The Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction on this appeal to reconsider the lawfulness of earlier orders which had not been appealed, or for which permission to appeal had been refused. The relevant prior orders were the injunctions which the appellant had breached. They were made under sections 3 and 3A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, giving the High Court an independent jurisdiction even if there had been jurisdictional difficulties in the company or probate claims. The appellant's domicile was largely irrelevant to those issues. The Court also endorsed the principle in M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377 that an order must be obeyed unless and until set aside, even if it is alleged to be ultra vires.
3. Procedural fairness. CPR rule 81.4(2) requires a contempt application to contain specified statements. Several were omitted from the first application notice and included in a later notice served only one clear working day before the hearing. That did not make the hearing unfair. The appellant had known of the application and hearing, had ample opportunity to defend it, knew her relevant rights from the earlier committal proceedings, could have sought an adjournment, and had deliberately chosen not to attend. There was no reason to think an adjournment would have altered her position.
4. Other grounds and final orders. The jurisdiction, conspiracy, fraud and freedom of expression grounds were meritless. The lower court had carefully weighed freedom of expression against protection from harassment and given cogent reasons. The appeal was certified as totally without merit. The Court declined to impose a civil restraint order of its own motion, leaving any such application to be made to the High Court on notice. In a postscript, the Court considered the observations in Thursfield v Thursfield [2013] EWCA Civ 840, [2013] CP Rep 44 apposite and observed that reform of appeals by contemnors from overseas was overdue.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division). Dismissed the appeal against the committal order and certified it as totally without merit: [2026] EWCA Civ 780.
• High Court of Justice, Chancery Division. HHJ Tindal imposed suspended terms of imprisonment for breaches of the executors' and administrators' protection-from-harassment orders: [2026] EWHC 490 (Ch).