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.