MBR Acres Limited & Ors v Michael Maher (aka John Thibeault) & Anor

MBR Acres Limited & Ors v Michael Maher (aka John Thibeault) & Anor

Personal service of an injunction order remains a substantive requirement for contempt proceedings unless the court orders otherwise. Service on solicitors is not good service unless permitted by an alternative service order. The Claimants failed to prove that Ms Laidlaw was personally served or had sufficient notice of the injunction's terms prior to the alleged breaches in the First Contempt Application. Therefore, the First Contempt Application against Ms Laidlaw is dismissed. Mr Maher is found guilty of contempt for admitted breaches, and Ms Laidlaw is found guilty for admitted breaches after personal service.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: MBR Acres Limited; Claimant/applicant: Demetris Markou; Claimant/applicant: B&K Universal Limited; Claimant/applicant: Susan Pressick; Defendant/respondent: Michael Maher (aka John Thibeault); Defendant/respondent: Sammi Laidlaw
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application (civil) / Judgment on Liability for Contempt, Pending Penalty Submissions
Outcome
First Contempt Application against Ms Laidlaw dismissed; Mr Maher and Ms Laidlaw found guilty of contempt for admitted breaches; penalty to be determined at a later hearing.
Legal Topics
Service of Injunction Orders, Personal Service, Alternative Service, Procedural Fairness, Breach of Injunction, Notice Requirements
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Service of Injunction Orders Personal Service Alternative Service Procedural Fairness Breach of Injunction Notice Requirements

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 40 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MBR Acres Limited

Claimant/applicant

Demetris Markou

Claimant/applicant

B&K Universal Limited

Claimant/applicant

Susan Pressick

Claimant/applicant

Michael Maher (aka John Thibeault)

Defendant/respondent

Sammi Laidlaw

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application (civil) / Judgment on Liability for Contempt, Pending Penalty Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of an injunction order on a defendant's solicitors is good service for contempt purposes under the new CPR Part 81
  2. 2 Whether the court should retrospectively validate alternative service or dispense with service of the injunction order on Ms Laidlaw
  3. 3 Whether the respondents breached the terms of the injunction order

Ratio Decidendi

Personal service of an injunction order remains a substantive requirement for contempt proceedings unless the court orders otherwise. Service on solicitors is not good service unless permitted by an alternative service order. The Claimants failed to prove that Ms Laidlaw was personally served or had sufficient notice of the injunction's terms prior to the alleged breaches in the First Contempt Application. Therefore, the First Contempt Application against Ms Laidlaw is dismissed. Mr Maher is found guilty of contempt for admitted breaches, and Ms Laidlaw is found guilty for admitted breaches after personal service.

Court Disposition

First Contempt Application against Ms Laidlaw dismissed; Mr Maher and Ms Laidlaw found guilty of contempt for admitted breaches; penalty to be determined at a later hearing.

Orders

  • First Contempt Application against Ms Laidlaw dismissed.
  • Mr Maher found guilty of contempt of court for admitted breaches.