The Secretry of State for Transport (HS2) v Cuciurean [2020] EWHC 2614 (Ch) (13 October 2020)

The Secretry of State for Transport (HS2) v Cuciurean [2020] EWHC 2614 (Ch) (13 October 2020)

The application for committal fails because the order was not personally served on Mr Cuciurean prior to the alleged breaches, and the order did not expressly dispense with personal service for the purposes of contempt. The procedural requirements for committal, especially service, are strict and not satisfied retrospectively. As such, the court has no jurisdiction to commit Mr Cuciurean for contempt in respect of the alleged incidents.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2614 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: HS2 Ltd and others; Respondent/defendant: Mr Cuciurean
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Application (committal) / Judgment After Full Evidentiary Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Service of Court Orders, Injunctions Against Persons Unknown, Trespass, Alternative Service, Protest Law
Civil Procedure Property Law Public Order Committal for Contempt Service of Court Orders Injunctions Against Persons Unknown Trespass Alternative Service +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HS2 Ltd and others

Claimant/applicant

Mr Cuciurean

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court Application (committal) / Judgment After Full Evidentiary Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the procedural and substantive requirements for committal for contempt are satisfied against Mr Cuciurean for alleged breaches of an interim injunction order relating to trespass on HS2 land.
  2. 2 Whether service of the order and penal notice on 'persons unknown' (including Mr Cuciurean) was valid and sufficient to found contempt proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the order was clear, unambiguous, and properly served prior to the alleged breaches.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for committal fails because the order was not personally served on Mr Cuciurean prior to the alleged breaches, and the order did not expressly dispense with personal service for the purposes of contempt. The procedural requirements for committal, especially service, are strict and not satisfied retrospectively. As such, the court has no jurisdiction to commit Mr Cuciurean for contempt in respect of the alleged incidents.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for committal against Mr Cuciurean is dismissed.