City of Westminster v Addbins Ltd & Ors [2012] EWHC 3716 (QB) (20 December 2012)

City of Westminster v Addbins Ltd & Ors [2012] EWHC 3716 (QB) (20 December 2012)

The defendants and Mr Griffin were in contempt of court for failing to comply with the injunction order by the deadline, as they made no serious attempt to ensure compliance, did not commit sufficient resources, and substantial compliance was possible. The application notice contained sufficient particulars, and service on Mr Griffin was properly dispensed with as he was fully aware of the order and not prejudiced.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 3716
Parties
Claimant: The Lord Mayor and the Citizens of the City of Westminster; Defendant: Addbins Limited; Defendant: Addison Lee PLC; Defendant: Mr John Griffin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Application / Judgment on Committal Application
Outcome
Defendants and Mr Griffin found in contempt of court.
Legal Topics
Advertisement Consent, Enforcement of Court Orders, Director Liability, Abuse of Process
Planning Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Advertisement Consent Enforcement of Court Orders Director Liability Abuse of Process

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Lord Mayor and the Citizens of the City of Westminster

Claimant

Addbins Limited

Defendant

Addison Lee PLC

Defendant

Mr John Griffin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court Application / Judgment on Committal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants and Mr Griffin were in contempt of court for failing to comply with an injunction order requiring removal of advertisements from cigarette bins
  2. 2 Whether the application notice contained sufficient particulars of contempt
  3. 3 Whether compliance with the order was impossible or unintentional

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants and Mr Griffin were in contempt of court for failing to comply with the injunction order by the deadline, as they made no serious attempt to ensure compliance, did not commit sufficient resources, and substantial compliance was possible. The application notice contained sufficient particulars, and service on Mr Griffin was properly dispensed with as he was fully aware of the order and not prejudiced.

Court Disposition

Defendants and Mr Griffin found in contempt of court.

Orders

  • Defendants to be fined for contempt.
  • Mr Griffin's committal application proceeds; service dispensed with.