Matthew Garrett v Roy Schestowitz & Anor (No 2)

Contempt depends on the meaning of the order, not its wider purpose. The order must be construed strictly, with clear words given their natural and ordinary meaning in context; material ambiguity is resolved in favour of the respondent. The applicant must prove knowledge of the order and relevant facts, deliberate breach, and all elements beyond reasonable doubt. Proportionality, impossibility and heightened procedural fairness remain safeguards.

In a final defamation injunction, a prohibition on publishing further words did not cover retaining an accessible webpage where separate limbs governed removal. A scheduled defamatory meaning could be matched by an individual feature unless the order required a combination. Identical mirror articles using an alternative internet protocol were within identified webpages. A mandatory limb requiring evaluative review was unenforceable for contempt without a deadline where it could not sensibly have immediate effect.

This was a first-instance committal application arising from a final injunction made after Matthew Garrett succeeded in defamation proceedings against Roy Schestowitz and Rianne Schestowitz. The earlier judgment, [2025] EWHC 3063 (KB), required removal of specified webpages, removal of other webpages bearing the same or similar meanings as scheduled defamatory meanings, and restraint from publishing further words bearing those meanings.

The claimant alleged 177 contempts. They concerned retained Gemini-equivalent articles, other online articles, IRC daily logs and four articles newly posted after the injunction. The central questions were whether retaining accessible content was publication, whether the injunction covered mirror articles on an alternative protocol, whether individual features of scheduled meanings could be matched, whether the evaluative comparison was enforceable, and whether the undated removal obligation could support contempt.

1. Disposition. Contempt was found for 48 of 177 alleged breaches: 42 by the First Defendant and 6 by the Second Defendant. The findings concerned the four newly posted articles and the retained Gemini-equivalent articles. No contempt was found on the retained other online articles or IRC daily logs. Consequential matters were reserved.
2. Governing principles. The court adopted the requirements of knowledge of the order, breach, and knowledge of the facts making the conduct a breach. Deliberate conduct, rather than an intention to breach, was required, and motive was irrelevant. The burden was on the claimant to prove contempt beyond reasonable doubt. The application also had to be proportionate, procedurally fair, and directed to conduct which was possible to perform. The court distinguished breach from contempt, applying Federal Bank of the Middle East Ltd v Hadkinson [2000] 1 WLR 1695.
3. Construction of the order. The order was construed strictly by its natural and ordinary meaning in context, including its historical context, object, reasons and mischief. Its purpose could not enlarge its terms, and material ambiguity would favour the respondent. The approach followed Pan Petroleum AJE Ltd v Yinka [2017] EWCA Civ 1525, Navigator Equities Ltd v Deripaska [2024] EWCA Civ 268 and Cuadrilla Bowland Ltd v Persons Unknown [2020] EWCA Civ 9.
4. Limbs 11a and 11b. Limb 11a concerned future publication and did not include retaining an accessible webpage. Separately numbered meanings in Schedule A were freestanding, so similarity to one feature could suffice unless a combination was expressly required. The comparison of meanings was enforceable because the meanings had been judicially determined through a transparent process. Limb 11b included identical Gemini-equivalent articles: webpage had a straightforward non-technical meaning of an online page, and the listed URLs identified what had to be removed.
5. Limb 11c. The absence of a deadline made Limb 11c unenforceable as a basis for contempt in this case. Its evaluative removal obligation required time and could not sensibly have immediate effect. SK v HD [2013] EWHC 796 (Fam) and McKay v All England Lawn Tennis Club [2020] EWCA Civ 695 arose in specific contexts and did not establish a general rule. The court did not need to decide the suggested application of Defamation Act 2013, s.13.

First-instance contempt determination arising from the earlier defamation judgment at [2025] EWHC 3063 (KB) . No appellate history is stated.