Timothy John Hull Pattinson v Robert Ian Winsor

A claimant’s request to withdraw contempt proceedings does not end the matter automatically. The court retains an interest in enforcing its orders and may proceed for contempt of its own motion. It must decide whether withdrawal serves the public interest in the circumstances, weighing enforcement against the consequences of continuing. Here, the court permitted withdrawal after the parties agreed terms which it considered would better serve the public interest, although the alleged further breaches were not adjudicated.

The Claimant applied to activate a four-month committal order, suspended for two years after the Defendant was found to have breached an interim injunction on 17 occasions. He also sought an additional penalty for 25 alleged later breaches of the final injunction. The suspended order was made on 4 November 2024 ([2024] EWHC 3320 (KB)), and the Court of Appeal dismissed the Defendant’s appeal ([2025] EWCA Civ 344). After several postponed hearings, the parties reached a consent agreement at the hearing of the later application. The central question was whether the court should permit withdrawal, given its interest in enforcing its orders and its power to proceed for contempt on its own initiative.

1. The court permitted the Claimant to withdraw the application and made the agreed Consent Order. The Defendant agreed to comply with the Eardley Injunction and to pay the Claimant’s assessed costs, subject to the agreed treatment of costs thrown away by the December 2025 postponement. The Claimant undertook not to seek to procure or compel the sale of the property in which the Defendant lived and held a life interest.

2. In deciding whether to permit withdrawal, the court considered its interest in enforcing its orders and its power to proceed for contempt of its own motion. There was a strong case for continuing: the application alleged repeated breaches, and the court considered that, if it proceeded, activation of the suspended term was virtually certain and an additional custodial term highly likely. Against that, the court concluded that, in the particular circumstances, the public interest was better served by the agreed resolution and the hope of future compliance, rather than imprisonment. The court therefore allowed withdrawal on compassionate grounds.

3. The further breaches were not determined, and the suspended committal order was not activated. Before the agreement was reached, the judge had decided to proceed despite the Defendant’s lack of legal representation. He considered the repeated advice and opportunities to obtain representation, the absence of a realistic prospect of doing so, and the indication that the lack of representation was being used to frustrate the process. The judge had reminded himself of the authorities on representation in committal proceedings, including Davies v Lettington [2026] EWCA Civ 364, Hammerton v Hammerton [2007] EWCA Civ 248 and O (Committal: Legal Representation) [2019] EWCA Civ 1721.

• High Court (King’s Bench Division): The Defendant was found in contempt on 12 September 2024 and sentenced on 4 November 2024; the four-month committal order was suspended for two years ([2024] EWHC 2563 (KB) ; [2024] EWHC 3320 (KB) ).
• Court of Appeal: The appeal against the suspended committal order was dismissed on 26 March 2025 ([2025] EWCA Civ 344 ).
• High Court (King’s Bench Division): The later application to activate the order and impose an additional penalty was withdrawn by permission under the consent order made on 1 July 2026.