London Borough of Southwark v Trevor Hadjimina

All persons are subject to the law and to the jurisdiction of the courts. A person cannot avoid a court order by asserting that he is a separate “living man” rather than the legal person named in the proceedings, or by refusing consent to statutory obligations. Courts may remove a litigant who deliberately disrupts proceedings where that is necessary to preserve the administration of justice. In sentencing civil contempt, the court should assess culpability and the harm caused, intended or likely to be caused; consider whether a fine is sufficient; impose the shortest custodial term that reflects the seriousness of the contempt; give proper weight to mitigation; and consider suspension. The sanction protects compliance with court orders and the public interest, rather than the dignity of the court.

The claimant sought committal of the defendant for breaching an injunction made under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The injunction prohibited unauthorised operational development at the defendant’s property and required the removal of specified structures.

The defendant rebuilt substantial timber and brick structures in breach of the injunction. He advanced Freeman of the Land arguments, challenged the court’s jurisdiction and disrupted an earlier hearing. The court found two contempts proved, considered whether the claimant should be authorised to enter the land and remove the structures, and then determined sentence.

1. The court rejected the defendant’s Freeman of the Land arguments. Statutory obligations and court orders do not depend on an individual’s consent, contract or acceptance of the court’s jurisdiction. All citizens are subject to the law.

2. Capacity is presumed unless the contrary is established. The adoption of erroneous pseudo-legal beliefs did not justify an investigation into the defendant’s litigation capacity.

3. A court may order a person intentionally disrupting or hindering proceedings to leave, and may have him removed if he refuses. That power is directed to protecting the administration of justice. The defendant was therefore properly removed from the hearing; further contempt proceedings for his disruption were disproportionate.

4. The defendant deliberately and flagrantly breached the injunction by constructing unauthorised timber and brick structures. The brick structure was the more serious contempt. Culpability was high and the harm was at a medium level, comprising planning harm and risks to neighbours and the public.

5. Applying the principles in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd v Khan (Practice Note) [2019] 1 WLR 3833 (CA), Lovett v Wigan BC [2022] EWCA Civ 1631, AG v Crossland [2021] UKSC 15 and National Highways Limited v Heyatawin and others [2021] EWHC 3078 (QB), imprisonment was justified. A concurrent sentence of six months was imposed for the brick structure and three months for the timber structure. The sentences were not suspended.

6. The claimant’s application for authority to enter the land and remove the structures was not determined. The claimant no longer pursued it in its existing form, and the court made no order.

Not an appeal. The judgment records earlier hearings before the same court concerning proof of contempt, sentence and the claimant’s enforcement application.