City of Westminster v Addbins Ltd & Ors

City of Westminster v Addbins Ltd & Ors

The defendants and Mr Griffin were in contempt of court because they knowingly failed to comply with a clear and unambiguous order requiring removal of unauthorised advertisements by a specified deadline. The application notice gave sufficient particulars of the alleged contempt. Compliance was not impossible; the defendants failed to commit adequate resources or act with urgency. Mr Griffin, as director, was personally responsible and had knowledge of the order. The committal application was not an abuse of process and service on Mr Griffin was properly dispensed with as he suffered no prejudice.

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 (civil) / Judgment After Contested Committal Application
Outcome
Defendants and Mr Griffin found in contempt of court
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Planning Control, Committal for Contempt, Procedural Requirements for Committal, Director Liability for Corporate Contempt, Abuse of Process
Planning Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Enforcement of Planning Control Committal for Contempt Procedural Requirements for Committal Director Liability for Corporate Contempt 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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
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 (civil) / Judgment After Contested Committal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants and Mr Griffin were in contempt of court for failing to comply with an injunction requiring removal of unauthorised advertisements
  2. 2 Whether the committal application was procedurally defective for lack of particulars
  3. 3 Whether compliance with the order was impossible or unintentional

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants and Mr Griffin were in contempt of court because they knowingly failed to comply with a clear and unambiguous order requiring removal of unauthorised advertisements by a specified deadline. The application notice gave sufficient particulars of the alleged contempt. Compliance was not impossible; the defendants failed to commit adequate resources or act with urgency. Mr Griffin, as director, was personally responsible and had knowledge of the order. The committal application was not an abuse of process and service on Mr Griffin was properly dispensed with as he suffered no prejudice.

Court Disposition

Defendants and Mr Griffin found in contempt of court