National Highways Limited v Callum Goodie & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1505 (KB)
Wealden District Council v Nadine Amy Strevett
16 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2688 (KB)
High Court
A council got a court order to make two people fix their land. They didn't. Even though they didn't show up to court, the judge said they were still guilty because the council proved they broke the order. The judge considered whether they were properly informed and decided that they were.
Key Facts
- •Wealden District Council obtained a final injunction against Nadine Amy Strevett and Nima Cham for breaches of planning regulations.
- •The injunction ordered the defendants to remove hardcore, reinstate a grass verge, and cease using the land for unauthorized purposes.
- •The defendants failed to comply with the injunction by April 2024.
- •The defendants did not attend the committal hearing.
- •The court considered whether service was effected and whether to proceed in the defendants' absence.
- •The court found that service was effected and proceeded in the defendants' absence.
Legal Principles
Service of court documents in contempt applications.
CPR Rule 81.5
Proceeding in the absence of a defendant.
Pirtek (UK) Limited v Robert Jackson [2018] EWHC 1004 (QB), Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust v Atwal [2018] EWHC 961 (QB), R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 (HL), Sanchez v Oboz [2015] EWHC 235 (Fam)
Standard of proof in contempt of court proceedings.
Not explicitly stated, but implied to be 'beyond reasonable doubt'
Outcomes
The court found that the defendants were served adequately.
The court accepted evidence of service attempts, including affixing documents to the gate, emailing, and texting despite the second defendant's attempt to evade service.
The court proceeded with the hearing in the absence of the defendants.
The court considered factors such as the lack of explanation for non-attendance, the uncertainty of an adjournment's effectiveness, and the public interest in expeditious resolution.
The court found the defendants in contempt of court.
The court found that the defendants breached multiple clauses of the injunction order based on the evidence provided by the Claimant's witness.