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)

Defendants and director were in contempt for failing to comply with court order to remove advertisements by deadline; particulars in application notice were sufficient; compliance was not impossible and defendants made no serious attempt to comply; director was aware and responsible; court dispensed with requirement for personal service on director.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 3716 (QB)
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 director found in contempt of court.
Legal Topics
Advertisement Consent, Enforcement of Court Orders, Director Liability, Procedural Requirements for Committal
Planning Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Advertisement Consent Enforcement of Court Orders Director Liability Procedural Requirements for Committal

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 defendants and director were in contempt for failing to comply with court order to remove advertisements
  2. 2 Whether application notice contained sufficient particulars
  3. 3 Whether compliance was impossible or unintentional

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants and director were in contempt for failing to comply with court order to remove advertisements by deadline; particulars in application notice were sufficient; compliance was not impossible and defendants made no serious attempt to comply; director was aware and responsible; court dispensed with requirement for personal service on director.

Court Disposition

Defendants and director found in contempt of court.

Orders

  • Defendants to be fined for contempt.
  • Director's committal considered; court dispensed with requirement for personal service.