Birmingham City Council v Unite The Union

A financial sanction for civil contempt must be just, proportionate and directed to the purposes of punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation and securing compliance with court orders. The court should assess seriousness by reference principally to culpability and harm, applying criminal sentencing principles only by analogy and with caution.

Relevant matters include whether the breach was deliberate, the contemnor’s appreciation of its seriousness, cooperation, apology, admission and the timing of that admission, steps taken to prevent recurrence, totality and financial means. Where an injunction’s purpose is to prevent interference with a service, restrictions must be construed so they cannot be circumvented by moving the prohibited conduct a short distance away.

These committal proceedings concerned the penalty to be imposed on Unite following its admitted breach of a prohibitory injunction granted on 23 May 2025 during a dispute concerning refuse collection in Birmingham.

The injunction restricted picketing and protesting at specified depots, limited designated pickets to six, and required protesting activities to remain within designated Assembly Areas. Unite members subsequently obstructed waste vehicles on roads near the depots. Unite accepted that this conduct breached the injunction, although it contended that the breaches resulted from a genuine misunderstanding of the Order’s scope.

The court therefore had to determine the seriousness of the breaches, the relevance of the asserted misunderstanding and mitigation, and the appropriate financial penalty and costs consequences.

1. The court imposed a fine of £265,000 for the breaches identified in the committal application. Unite was also ordered to pay BCC’s costs, with an interim payment on account of £170,000 payable within 14 days.

2. The purposes of a civil contempt sanction include punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, securing future compliance, upholding the authority of the court and marking the public importance of obedience to court orders. The sanction must remain just, proportionate and not excessive. Criminal sentencing principles do not apply directly, but may assist by analogy with appropriate caution. The court followed the approach discussed in JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko (No 2) [2011] EWCA Civ 1241, Elliott Cuciurean v Secretary of State for Transport and High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 257 and HM Attorney General v Crosland [2021] UKSC 15.

3. Seriousness is assessed principally by reference to culpability and harm. Relevant considerations include deliberateness, degree of culpability, appreciation of the breach, cooperation, apology, admission and its timing, and steps taken to prevent further breach. The criminal standard applies to contested factual issues relevant to sanction. The court applied the approach identified in Crystal Mews v Metterick [2006] EWHC 3087 (Ch), JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko (No 2) [2010] EWHC 2843 (Ch) and Aspect Capital Ltd v Christensen [2010] EWHC 744 (Ch).

4. The injunction could not reasonably be understood to prohibit obstruction only at the depot entrances while permitting vehicles to be obstructed shortly afterwards on collection routes. The asserted interpretation was not a genuine misunderstanding and provided no meaningful mitigation. Unite’s repeated breaches, delayed response to warnings and delay in obtaining advice demonstrated high culpability. The apology, later admission and subsequent compliance afforded some mitigation, but the sanction also had to reflect totality, public-service disruption and Unite’s financial resources.

5. Secretary of State for Justice v Prison Officers Association [2019] EWHC 3553 (QB) was materially different on its facts and did not provide a direct tariff. Its fines nevertheless indicated the need for a substantial penalty where culpability and potential harm were high.