Mark Cooper v Ignite International Brands (UK) Limited & Ors
[2024] EWCA Civ 807
Mark Gary Coates v Janice Elizabeth Turner & Anor
12 December 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 1487
Court of Appeal
A man was jailed for disobeying a court order. The appeal court agreed he broke some rules but said the punishment was too harsh given the circumstances and reduced it, so he was released immediately.
Key Facts
- •Mark Gary Coates appealed a 252-day committal order for seven contempt of court breaches stemming from a September 2022 order in a civil boundary dispute.
- •The 2022 order involved damages of £260,000, costs, and injunctions against harassment and property interference.
- •Coates represented himself at the lower court but had counsel on appeal.
- •The appeal challenged the sentence's excessiveness, the consecutive nature of sentences, the lack of a suspended sentence, the use of Coates's witness statements, and the classification of one breach.
Legal Principles
Right to remain silent in contempt proceedings; use of witness statements by a litigant in person.
CPR r.81.7(3) and r.81.4(2)(n); Comet Products v Hawkex Plastics [1971] 2 QB 67; Arlidge, Eady & Smith on Contempt, 5th ed. at para. 15-55; In re B (Contempt of Court: Affidavit Evidence) [1996] 1 WLR 627
Sentencing guidelines for contempt of court, including culpability and harm levels, and the use of concurrent vs. consecutive sentences.
Lovett v Wigan Borough Council [2022] EWCA Civ 1631; Civil Justice Council’s report, ‘Anti-Social Behaviour and the Civil Courts’ (July 2020)
Standard of proof in contempt proceedings is beyond reasonable doubt.
Case Law
Appellate court's deference to lower court's findings of fact.
Volpi v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in part.
The 252-day sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly given the questionable classification of one breach (allegation 9) and the overall circumstances. The court substituted a sentence resulting in immediate release, as Coates had already served 47 days.
Contempt findings upheld except for Allegation 9.
The court found sufficient evidence to support the other contempt findings beyond reasonable doubt. Allegation 9, concerning remarks made during a previous hearing, was deemed not to meet the threshold for a contempt of court.