Molloy v BPHA Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 1035 (09 July 2021)

Molloy v BPHA Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 1035 (09 July 2021)

The judge was entitled to find, on the evidence and to the criminal standard, that the appellant's conduct on 9 September 2020 was intended to intimidate Ms B and thus breached the injunction. The extension of the injunction to prohibit abusive language or gestures in communal areas was necessary and proportionate in light of the appellant's history of anti-social behaviour and the impact on Ms B's rights, and did not amount to a disproportionate interference with the appellant's Article 8 rights.

Citation
[2021] EWCA Civ 1035
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Declan Molloy; Respondent/claimant: BPHA Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment on Committal for Contempt
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Anti Social Behaviour Injunctions, Committal for Contempt, Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Private Life), Use of CCTV Evidence, Proportionality of Injunctions
Civil Procedure Housing Law Human Rights Anti Social Behaviour Injunctions Committal for Contempt Article 8 ECHR (right to Respect for Private Life) Use of CCTV Evidence Proportionality of Injunctions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Declan Molloy

Appellant/defendant

BPHA Limited

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment on Committal for Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge was correct to find a breach of the injunction by the appellant to the criminal standard
  2. 2 Whether the extension of the injunction prohibiting abusive language or gestures in communal areas was a disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to find, on the evidence and to the criminal standard, that the appellant's conduct on 9 September 2020 was intended to intimidate Ms B and thus breached the injunction. The extension of the injunction to prohibit abusive language or gestures in communal areas was necessary and proportionate in light of the appellant's history of anti-social behaviour and the impact on Ms B's rights, and did not amount to a disproportionate interference with the appellant's Article 8 rights.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant's appeal dismissed with costs
  • Suspended sentence of 28 days imprisonment for contempt upheld