The Secretry of State for Transport (HS2) v Cuciurean

The Secretry of State for Transport (HS2) v Cuciurean

The court found that the order was clear and unambiguous, that service requirements (including alternative service) were properly complied with, and that Mr Cuciurean deliberately breached the order by entering the Crackley Land on multiple occasions without consent. The court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that incidents 1 to 3 and 5 to 13 constituted contempt, rejecting arguments about unclear boundaries, lack of knowledge, or licence/right of way. The procedural and substantive requirements for committal were met.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: The Secretary of State for Transport; Claimant/applicant: High Speed Two (HS2) Limited; Defendant/respondent: Elliott Cuciurean
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application (committal for Breach of Injunction) / Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Application for committal allowed in part; defendant found in contempt of court for specified breaches of the order.
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Service of Orders on Persons Unknown, Interim Injunctions, Trespass, Protest Law
Civil Procedure Property Law Contempt of Court Committal for Contempt Service of Orders on Persons Unknown Interim Injunctions Trespass Protest Law

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Secretary of State for Transport

Claimant/applicant

High Speed Two (HS2) Limited

Claimant/applicant

Elliott Cuciurean

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application (committal for Breach of Injunction) / Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached the terms of an interim injunction order by entering or remaining on specified land without consent
  2. 2 Whether the procedural and substantive requirements for committal for contempt were satisfied, including service, clarity of order, and knowledge of the order
  3. 3 Whether the boundaries of the land were sufficiently clear and whether any licence or right of way excused the alleged breaches

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the order was clear and unambiguous, that service requirements (including alternative service) were properly complied with, and that Mr Cuciurean deliberately breached the order by entering the Crackley Land on multiple occasions without consent. The court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that incidents 1 to 3 and 5 to 13 constituted contempt, rejecting arguments about unclear boundaries, lack of knowledge, or licence/right of way. The procedural and substantive requirements for committal were met.

Court Disposition

Application for committal allowed in part; defendant found in contempt of court for specified breaches of the order.

Orders

  • Mr Cuciurean found in contempt of court for breaches relating to incidents 1 to 3 and 5 to 13 as set out in the Statement of Case.
  • Sanction and mitigation to be addressed at a subsequent hearing.