Marshall Properties Ltd. v R H Tomlinssons (Trowbridge) Ltd.

Marshall Properties Ltd. v R H Tomlinssons (Trowbridge) Ltd.

The sentence of imprisonment was unsafe due to procedural errors: the judge pre-judged the outcome, failed to allow submissions on penalty, and did not consider suspension of sentence. The breaches remain recorded but no penalty is to be imposed and the sentence is quashed.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Marshall Properties Limited; Defendant/appellant: R H Tomlinssons (Trowbridge) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 January 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Bath County Court Decision on Committal and Injunction
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Committal Proceedings, Injunctions, Recusal of Judge, Procedural Fairness
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Committal Proceedings Injunctions Recusal of Judge Procedural Fairness

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marshall Properties Limited

Claimant/respondent

R H Tomlinssons (Trowbridge) Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Bath County Court Decision on Committal and Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing to recuse himself
  2. 2 Whether the committal proceedings were conducted fairly
  3. 3 Whether the sentence of imprisonment was appropriate and procedurally correct

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence of imprisonment was unsafe due to procedural errors: the judge pre-judged the outcome, failed to allow submissions on penalty, and did not consider suspension of sentence. The breaches remain recorded but no penalty is to be imposed and the sentence is quashed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Sentence of imprisonment quashed
  • Breaches of injunction remain recorded