Brampford House Estate Limited & Ors v Marlborough Consultancy Services & Ors

A contempt hearing should be adjourned where late-served material introduces evidence requiring a fair opportunity for response and makes the existing time estimate inadequate. The court must ensure that a committal application, particularly one carrying a possible custodial sentence, is heard justly and with sufficient preparation and judicial time. A respondent’s status as a litigant in person is relevant, but it does not remove the need to comply with procedural requirements or deprive the other parties of a fair opportunity to answer new material. The court may use the existing hearing for proportionate case management. Costs of the adjournment may properly be reserved to the judge hearing the substantive contempt application.

The claimants sought the committal of the third defendant for alleged contempt arising from breaches of freezing and disclosure orders, false statements and failure to disclose the source of funds used for legal expenses. The application had been issued in January 2026 and was listed for two hours. The defendant, acting in person, served a lengthy skeleton argument and supplemental bundle shortly before the hearing, introducing substantial evidential material. The claimants sought an adjournment to allow investigation, responsive evidence and submissions, and to permit a realistic one-day hearing. The central issue was whether the contempt application could fairly and effectively proceed within the existing listing.

1. Adjournment granted. The Contempt Application was adjourned and the remaining hearing time was used for case management directions.
2. The defendant had known of the application and supporting evidence since January 2026. Under para.13.1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Practice Direction 58, evidence in answer should have been filed and served within 14 days. The claimants had nevertheless allowed further time. The defendant’s skeleton, served the day before the hearing, contained substantial evidence and exceeded the permitted length without permission.
3. The claimants required time to consider whether responsive evidence was necessary and to prepare responsive submissions. That could not fairly be achieved overnight. The two-hour estimate was inadequate even before allowing for the need to address the new material and for the court to give judgment.
4. The seriousness of the allegations, including the possibility of an immediate custodial sentence of 12 to 24 months, made it especially important that the court receive proper assistance and allow sufficient time for a just hearing. The overriding objective was therefore best served by an adjournment and a revised one-day estimate.
5. The court remained sympathetic to the defendant as a litigant in person, but his late engagement did not justify denying the claimants a fair opportunity to respond. The costs of the hearing were reserved to the judge hearing the adjourned contempt application.
6. The court added that it would act robustly in future cases where late engagement was tactical, but that general observation did not alter the conclusion that an adjournment was necessary in this case.