Bristol & West Investments Plc v Tompkins

Bristol & West Investments Plc v Tompkins

The appeal was dismissed because Mr Tompkins had persistent and flagrant defiance of court orders, had adequate notice and opportunity to comply, and no further practical steps could be taken to avoid the consequences of his non-compliance. The committal order was justified and must be enforced.

Parties
Respondent/claimant: Bristol & West Investments PLC; Appellant/first Defendant: Bryan Henry Tompkins
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Committal Order for Contempt
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Enforcement of Possession Orders, Mortgage Possession, Non Compliance With Court Orders

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bristol & West Investments PLC

Respondent/claimant

Bryan Henry Tompkins

Appellant/first Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Committal Order for Contempt

  1. 1 Whether the committal order for contempt should be upheld against Mr Tompkins for failure to comply with a possession order and removal of livestock
  2. 2 Whether Mr Tompkins had adequate notice and opportunity to comply with the court's orders

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because Mr Tompkins had persistent and flagrant defiance of court orders, had adequate notice and opportunity to comply, and no further practical steps could be taken to avoid the consequences of his non-compliance. The committal order was justified and must be enforced.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of committal for contempt upheld
  • Mr Tompkins to report to Oxford County Court for execution of committal order