HXZ v NMX

A defendant facing contempt proceedings that may result in imprisonment must have a reasonable opportunity to obtain legal representation for the substantive hearing. Legal aid may be available without a means test. A directions hearing may also need to be adjourned while representation is secured where proceeding would be unfair or potentially impair the defendant’s right to a fair trial. The court should consider the defendant’s efforts to obtain assistance, health and ability to participate, the issues at the hearing, prejudice from delay and the urgency of the proceedings. Admitted breaches do not remove the potential need for representation when the court considers disposal.

The claimant brought proceedings for misuse of private information and harassment and applied to commit the defendant for alleged breaches of court orders. A directions hearing in the contempt proceedings was listed while the defendant remained unrepresented. She sought an adjournment after a solicitor began an application for legal aid, relying on her mental health difficulties and the time needed for legal advice and preparation. The central issue was whether the directions hearing should proceed before she had representation. The judgment also gave provisional, non-binding comments on her application to join Meta as a party.

1. The defendant’s application to adjourn was granted. A person facing contempt proceedings that may result in imprisonment is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to obtain legal representation for the substantive hearing. The court relied on CPR Part 81.4(2)(i) and (j), Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and All England Tennis Club v McKay [2019] EWHC 3065 (QB), as approved by the Court of Appeal in Davies v Lettington [2026] EWCA Civ 364.

2. Under the principles in Hammerton v Hammerton [2007] EWCA Civ 248, unreasonable refusal of legal assistance may make representation impossible. Otherwise, an adjournment should generally be granted, save in extreme urgency, to allow representation to be obtained. The judge was not satisfied that the defendant had been unreasonably intransigent. Her reported mental health difficulties, the complexity of the proceedings and the high stakes supported giving her time to secure a lawyer. Her admission of the alleged breaches did not remove the value of representation in addressing the appropriate disposal.

3. The court also adjourned the directions hearing. Although it was not the substantive committal hearing, the proposed directions raised potentially substantial issues, including privacy, adjustments, the hearing time estimate and medical evidence. Proceeding while the defendant was unrepresented would be unfair and potentially inconsistent with Article 6. The court balanced that against the claimant’s attendance and costs, the need to deal with contempt proceedings expeditiously, and the absence of ongoing breaches or significant urgency.

4. The directions hearing was to be listed on the first open date after 1 December 2026 for half a day, with a reading day. The parties were also directed to attend a costs and case management conference with the set-aside hearing listed for 20 November 2026. The judge did not formally determine the application to join Meta. His provisional view was that no cause of action or issue involving Meta had been identified and that joinder merely to obtain disclosure would be inappropriate. He considered joinder likely to add cost, complexity and prejudice. He directed a written process if the defendant chose to pursue the application and emphasised that any later judge would consider it afresh.