EBK v DLO
[2024] EWHC 984 (Fam)
Richard Achille v Philip Calcutt & Anor
8 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 524 (KB)
High Court
Someone sued for contempt of court, claiming others doctored emails to get them kicked out of a tennis club. The judge threw out the case and refused permission to appeal. The judge said there wasn't enough evidence, and the appeal wouldn't be in the public interest. The person trying to appeal didn't get their wish.
Key Facts
- •Richard Achille sought to commit Philip Calcutt and Jane Carrington to prison for contempt of court.
- •The alleged contempt arose from their handling of emails related to Achille's expulsion from Moseley Tennis Club in 2014.
- •Achille's initial application for permission to bring contempt proceedings was dismissed.
- •This judgment concerns Achille's application for permission to appeal that dismissal.
Legal Principles
Relief from sanctions under CPR r.3.9 and Denton principles.
Denton v. TH White Ltd [2014] ESCA Civ 906, [2014] 1 W.L.R. 3926; Park v. Hadi [2022] EWCA Civ 581, [2022] 4 W.L.R. 61
Admissibility of fresh evidence on appeal.
CPR r.52.21(2)
Requirements for establishing contempt of court; strong prima facie case; public interest.
Implicit throughout the judgment
Time limits for appealing court orders.
CPR r.52.12, r.52.15
Outcomes
Permission to appeal refused.
The court found Achille's arguments on procedural error, lack of a strong prima facie case, and public interest unconvincing. Fresh evidence was deemed inadmissible, and even if considered, wouldn't have altered the outcome. The time for appealing was set to 22 March 2024.