MBR Acres td & Ors v Maher & Anor [2022] EWHC 1123 (QB) (16 May 2022)

MBR Acres td & Ors v Maher & Anor [2022] EWHC 1123 (QB) (16 May 2022)

Service of the injunction order on Ms Laidlaw's solicitors was not good service for contempt proceedings; personal service remains required unless court orders otherwise. Retrospective permission for alternative service was not granted, but court dispensed with personal service requirement due to evidence Ms Laidlaw had sufficient notice of injunction terms. Both respondents admitted breaches of the injunction after proper service.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1123
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 (breach of Injunction) / Judgment Following Contempt Hearing
Outcome
Respondents found in contempt for admitted breaches of injunction after proper service.
Legal Topics
Service of Injunction Orders, Personal Service Requirements, Alternative Service, Procedural Fairness, Breach of Injunction
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Service of Injunction Orders Personal Service Requirements Alternative Service Procedural Fairness Breach of Injunction

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 9 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 (breach of Injunction) / Judgment Following Contempt Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of injunction order on respondent's solicitors constitutes good service for contempt proceedings
  2. 2 Whether court should retrospectively grant alternative service or dispense with personal service requirement
  3. 3 Whether respondents breached terms of injunction

Ratio Decidendi

Service of the injunction order on Ms Laidlaw's solicitors was not good service for contempt proceedings; personal service remains required unless court orders otherwise. Retrospective permission for alternative service was not granted, but court dispensed with personal service requirement due to evidence Ms Laidlaw had sufficient notice of injunction terms. Both respondents admitted breaches of the injunction after proper service.

Court Disposition

Respondents found in contempt for admitted breaches of injunction after proper service.

Orders

  • Court dispensed with requirement of personal service for Ms Laidlaw for First Contempt Application due to sufficient notice.
  • Admissions of breach accepted; no further findings on non-admitted breaches.