Adam (formerly known as Michael Merrill) v Cheshire East Council
[2024] EWCA Civ 536
Graham Michael Wildin v Forest of Dean District Council
1 March 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 366
Court of Appeal
A man built a building without permission. The court told him to tear it down, but he didn't. The court sent him to jail, and even though he tried to say he couldn't do it anymore because he sold the building, the judge said he still had to go to jail.
Key Facts
- •Appellant (Wildin) built a large sports and leisure building without planning permission.
- •Enforcement notice was issued and subsequently appealed, but Wildin did not comply.
- •Injunction order was granted in 2018 to compel compliance with the enforcement notice.
- •Wildin failed to comply with the injunction, leading to a suspended committal order.
- •Appeal against the suspended committal order was dismissed in 2021.
- •Wildin still failed to comply, leading to the activation of the suspended committal order.
- •Wildin was committed to prison for 6 weeks.
- •Wildin appealed the activation of the committal order.
- •Wildin claimed inability to comply due to lack of access and funds, and subsequent sale of the property.
Legal Principles
Court has power to order committal to prison for contempt of court (up to 2 years).
Section 14, Contempt of Court Act 1981
Court can suspend committal order with terms and conditions.
CPR rule 81.29(1)
Activating a suspended sentence involves judicial discretion, considering past and current situations and breach gravity.
Villiers v Villiers [1994] 1 WLR 493
Appeal court reviews lower court decisions, only re-hearing in interests of justice.
CPR rule 52.21
Appellate court reluctant to interfere with penalty decisions unless error of principle, immaterial factors considered/material factors omitted, or decision plainly wrong.
Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited v Zafar [2019] 1 WLR 3833
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
Judge correctly exercised discretion, considering all relevant factors (culpability vs. personal circumstances). Findings of fact supported by evidence; appellant's late challenges insufficient.