National Highways Limited v Adelheid Russenberger & Ors
[2024] EWHC 566 (KB)
South Oxfordshire District Council v Darren Smith & Anor
11 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 2985 (KB)
High Court
A council got a court order stopping people from building on their land without permission. The people ignored the order, and built anyway. The court found them guilty of contempt of court and gave them suspended jail sentences. They also have to pay the council's legal costs.
Key Facts
- •South Oxfordshire District Council (Claimant) sought to commit Darren Smith and Milo Lee (Defendants) for contempt of court.
- •Defendants are members of the Gypsy and Traveller community and registered proprietors of land containing disused stables and a barn.
- •An interim injunction was granted against Defendants, prohibiting bringing caravans/mobile homes, portable structures, waste materials, and undertaking works without permission.
- •Defendants admitted to breaches: bringing caravans onto the land, laying hardstanding, installing gates/lighting/CCTV.
- •Defendants argued they misunderstood the injunction due to illiteracy and lack of legal representation.
- •Claimant argued breaches were deliberate and ongoing.
- •The court considered whether Defendants understood the injunction, whether caravan occupation breached the injunction, and whether breaches were ongoing.
Legal Principles
Contempt of court by breach of a court order requires: (a) notice of an unambiguous order; (b) intention to do the prohibited act or fail to do the required act; (c) knowledge of facts making the act a breach.
Whitebook 2024, paragraph 81CC.16; FW Farnsworth Ltd v Lacy [2013] EWHC 3487 (Ch); Cuciurean v Secretary of State for Transport [2021] EWCA Civ 357
Construction of a judicial order depends on language conveying circumstances before the court and patent to the parties; Court's reasons are admissible to construe the order.
ISAAC Sarayiah v University of Durham and Ors [2020] EWHC 2792 (QB)
A material change of use in planning law is not constituted merely by placing caravans or other works on the land, but occurs once the land is actually used as a residential caravan site.
Planning Encyclopaedia, paragraph 55.49
For committal for contempt, the relevant prohibition must be clear.
Redwing Ltd v. Redwing Forest Products Ltd [1947] 64 RPC 67; Cuadrilla Bowland Ltd and Ors v. Persons Unknown and Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 9
Reduction in sentence for admitting contempt depends on timing; earlier admissions receive greater reduction.
Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd v. Khan and Ors [2019] 1 WLR 3833; Attorney General v. Crosland [2021] 4 WLR 103
Outcomes
Both Defendants found in contempt of court.
Defendants deliberately breached the injunction despite knowledge of its terms and the opportunity to apply for variation; breaches were ongoing.
Sentences of 8 months imprisonment, reduced to 6 months due to admissions, suspended for 18 months.
High culpability due to deliberate breaches, attempts to deceive, and continued work after committal application; medium harm to administration of justice, planning process, and environment; remorse and family circumstances considered in mitigation.
Defendants ordered to pay Claimant's costs (£23,500).
Standard costs order in contempt cases.