The London Borough of Richmond v Trotman
[2023] EWHC 2967 (KB)
The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Richmond v Alistair Trotman
19 August 2024
[2024] EWHC 2145 (KB)
High Court
A council got an injunction against a man for his boat being too close to the riverbank. The injunction was poorly written. The council tried to get the man in trouble for breaking it, but the judge said the council was mostly wrong and the man didn't have to go to jail. The judge also scolded the council for being unfair and not following proper court procedures.
Key Facts
- •Mr. Trotman operated riverboats on the Thames, causing issues with the boroughs of Kingston and Richmond.
- •Richmond obtained an interim injunction against Mr. Trotman (Lambert J, July 2023) for trespass, later replaced by an injunction for nuisance (HHJ Blair KC, February 2024).
- •Richmond pursued contempt proceedings against Mr. Trotman for alleged breaches of the interim injunction.
- •HHJ Blair KC found no trespass, only nuisance, and awarded costs against Mr. Trotman.
- •Mr. Trotman represented himself throughout the proceedings.
- •Mr. Trotman was bankrupt during part of the proceedings and was later discharged.
Legal Principles
Issue estoppel: A court is bound by relevant findings and decisions from a previous trial of the same action.
Spencer Bower and Handley on Res Judicata
Committal for civil contempt requires clear and unambiguous injunction terms, proper notice to the defendant, and proof of breach beyond reasonable doubt.
Halsbury's Laws of England, vol. 24, paragraph 72; Arlidge, Eady & Smith on Contempt, 12-55
Principle against doubtful penalisation: In cases of ambiguity in an injunction, the benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant.
Bennion, Statutory Interpretation, 7th ed.
Section 285 of the Insolvency Act 1986: Deals with the continuation of proceedings against an individual who becomes bankrupt.
Insolvency Act 1986, Section 285
Section 27 of the Police and Justice Act 2006: Sets a high threshold for attaching a power of arrest to an injunction granted by a local authority.
Police and Justice Act 2006, Section 27
Outcomes
The application for a committal order was dismissed.
The only proved breach of the interim injunction was minor, short-lived, and related to an order no longer in force. The court found that the evidence did not support the other alleged breaches, and the conduct did not meet the threshold for contempt.
HHJ Blair KC's order remains in force for four years.
This order, replacing the interim injunction, was clear and unambiguous.
Costs reserved for further consideration.
The judge considered the possibility of awarding costs to Mr. Trotman, given the questionable pursuit of the contempt proceedings.
Similar Cases
The Mayor and Burgess of the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames v Alistair Trotman
[2024] EWHC 9 (KB)
The London Borough of Richmond on Thames v Alistair Trotman
[2023] EWHC 2461 (KB)
Alistair Trotman v The Environment Agency
[2024] EWHC 825 (Admin)
The Mayor & Burgesses of the London Borough of Enfield v Charles Snell & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1206 (KB)