Maldon District Council v Hammond [2005] EWCA Civ 1001 (07 July 2005)

Maldon District Council v Hammond [2005] EWCA Civ 1001 (07 July 2005)

The appellant was in wilful and contumacious breach of the injunction. The judge's assessment of hardship and alternative accommodation was correct. There was no error in refusing to extend the suspension period. The appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 1001
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Maldon District Council; Defendant/appellant: Michael Roy Hammond
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Committal for Contempt, Enforcement of Planning Control, Suspension of Sentence, Human Rights, Alternative Accommodation
Planning Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Injunctions Committal for Contempt Enforcement of Planning Control Suspension of Sentence Human Rights +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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maldon District Council

Claimant/respondent

Michael Roy Hammond

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the period of suspension of committal for contempt should be extended
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in assessing hardship and alternative accommodation
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's breaches were wilful and contumacious

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was in wilful and contumacious breach of the injunction. The judge's assessment of hardship and alternative accommodation was correct. There was no error in refusing to extend the suspension period. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Public funding assessment of the appellant's costs