Hughes Jarvis Ltd vSearle & Anor

Hughes Jarvis Ltd vSearle & Anor

The judge had no jurisdiction to commit Mr Jarvis for contempt as there was no formal order breached and the conduct did not amount to contempt in the face of the court; the summary procedure adopted was procedurally unfair; and the strike out of the claim and defence to counterclaim was unjustified as a fair trial was still possible and the judge's assessment of credibility was flawed.

Parties
Claimant / First Appellant: Hughes Jarvis Limited; Defendant / Respondent: David Searle; Third Party / Second Appellant: Neil David Martin Jarvis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment (committal and Strike Out Orders)
Outcome
Appeals allowed; committal and strike out orders set aside.
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Strike Out Applications, Fair Trial Rights, Possession Proceedings, Judicial Procedure
Civil Procedure Landlord and Tenant Law Contempt of Court Committal for Contempt Strike Out Applications Fair Trial Rights Possession Proceedings Judicial Procedure

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hughes Jarvis Limited

Claimant / First Appellant

David Searle

Defendant / Respondent

Neil David Martin Jarvis

Third Party / Second Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment (committal and Strike Out Orders)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge had jurisdiction to commit Mr Jarvis for contempt for discussing evidence during adjournment
  2. 2 Whether the summary committal procedure adopted was procedurally fair
  3. 3 Whether the judge was justified in striking out the claim and defence to counterclaim based on alleged contempt and credibility issues

Ratio Decidendi

The judge had no jurisdiction to commit Mr Jarvis for contempt as there was no formal order breached and the conduct did not amount to contempt in the face of the court; the summary procedure adopted was procedurally unfair; and the strike out of the claim and defence to counterclaim was unjustified as a fair trial was still possible and the judge's assessment of credibility was flawed.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; committal and strike out orders set aside.

Orders

  • Committal order against Mr Jarvis set aside
  • Strike out of claim and defence to counterclaim set aside