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 did not constitute good service for contempt proceedings; personal service remains required unless court orders otherwise. Retrospective permission for alternative service was not granted, but the court dispensed with personal service in light of evidence that Ms Laidlaw had sufficient knowledge of the injunction's terms. Both respondents admitted breaches of the injunction, but lacked intent to disobey. Contempt established on admitted breaches.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1123 (QB)
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 Hearing of Contempt Applications
Outcome
Contempt established against both respondents for admitted breaches of injunction.
Legal Topics
Service of Injunction Orders, Personal Service Requirements, Alternative Service, CPR Part 81, Breach of Injunction
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Service of Injunction Orders Personal Service Requirements Alternative Service CPR Part 81 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 5 Authorities cited 7 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 Hearing of Contempt Applications

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

Service of the injunction order on Ms Laidlaw's solicitors did not constitute good service for contempt proceedings; personal service remains required unless court orders otherwise. Retrospective permission for alternative service was not granted, but the court dispensed with personal service in light of evidence that Ms Laidlaw had sufficient knowledge of the injunction's terms. Both respondents admitted breaches of the injunction, but lacked intent to disobey. Contempt established on admitted breaches.

Court Disposition

Contempt established against both respondents for admitted breaches of injunction.

Orders

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