Hughes Jarvis Ltd vSearle & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 1 (15 January 2019)

Hughes Jarvis Ltd vSearle & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 1 (15 January 2019)

The County Court judge had no jurisdiction to commit Mr Jarvis for contempt as there was no valid court order breached and the conduct did not amount to contempt in the face of the court under s.118 of the County Courts Act 1984. The summary procedure adopted was unfair and contrary to CPR 81. The strike out of the claim and defence to counterclaim was unjustified as the judge's conclusion that a fair trial was impossible was based on an erroneous assessment of the evidence and the effect of Mr Jarvis's conduct. The orders for committal and strike out were set aside.

Citation
[2019] EWCA Civ 1
Parties
First Appellant/claimant: Hughes Jarvis Limited; Second Appellant/third Party: Neil David Martin Jarvis; Respondent/defendant: David Searle
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment and Committal Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; committal and strike out orders set aside
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Strike Out of Claim, Fair Trial, Possession Proceedings, Breach of Court Order, Jurisdiction of County Court
Civil Procedure Landlord and Tenant Contempt of Court Committal for Contempt Strike Out of Claim Fair Trial Possession Proceedings Breach of Court Order +1 more

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

Parties

Hughes Jarvis Limited

First Appellant/claimant

Neil David Martin Jarvis

Second Appellant/third Party

David Searle

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment and Committal Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the County Court judge had jurisdiction to commit Mr Jarvis for contempt for discussing evidence during adjournment
  2. 2 Whether the procedure adopted for committal was fair and compliant with CPR 81
  3. 3 Whether the judge was justified in striking out the claim and defence to counterclaim on grounds of abuse of process and impossibility of fair trial

Ratio Decidendi

The County Court judge had no jurisdiction to commit Mr Jarvis for contempt as there was no valid court order breached and the conduct did not amount to contempt in the face of the court under s.118 of the County Courts Act 1984. The summary procedure adopted was unfair and contrary to CPR 81. The strike out of the claim and defence to counterclaim was unjustified as the judge's conclusion that a fair trial was impossible was based on an erroneous assessment of the evidence and the effect of Mr Jarvis's conduct. The orders for committal and strike out were set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal 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