National Highways Ltd v Buse & Ors [2021] EWHC 3404 (QB) (15 December 2021)

National Highways Ltd v Buse & Ors [2021] EWHC 3404 (QB) (15 December 2021)

The defendants deliberately breached a validly served injunction prohibiting obstruction of the M25/A206 for protest purposes. Their actions caused substantial disruption and were intended to do so. While their motives were conscientious, the law requires compliance with court orders. Each defendant is individually assessed; the custody threshold is crossed, but sentences are reduced for early admission and, except for the first and third defendants, suspended due to cessation of protests and engagement with the court.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 3404 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: National Highways Limited; Defendant: Benjamin Buse; Defendant: Biff Whipster; Defendant: Diana Warner; Defendant: Paul Sheeky; Defendant: Richard Ramsden; Defendant: Ruth Jarman; Defendant: Stephen Gower; Defendant: Stephen Pritchard; Defendant: Sue Parfitt
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Proceedings (committal Applications) / Sanction/sentencing After Admitted Contempt
Outcome
Defendants found in contempt of court; custodial sentences imposed, mostly suspended.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Injunctions, Protest Law, Sentencing for Contempt, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly
Civil Procedure Public Order Human Rights Contempt of Court Injunctions Protest Law Sentencing for Contempt Freedom of Expression +1 more

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Highways Limited

Claimant

Benjamin Buse

Defendant

Biff Whipster

Defendant

Diana Warner

Defendant

Paul Sheeky

Defendant

Richard Ramsden

Defendant

Ruth Jarman

Defendant

Stephen Gower

Defendant

Stephen Pritchard

Defendant

Sue Parfitt

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court Proceedings (committal Applications) / Sanction/sentencing After Admitted Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants are in contempt of court for breaching the injunction of 21 September 2021
  2. 2 What sanction is appropriate for the admitted contempt

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants deliberately breached a validly served injunction prohibiting obstruction of the M25/A206 for protest purposes. Their actions caused substantial disruption and were intended to do so. While their motives were conscientious, the law requires compliance with court orders. Each defendant is individually assessed; the custody threshold is crossed, but sentences are reduced for early admission and, except for the first and third defendants, suspended due to cessation of protests and engagement with the court.

Court Disposition

Defendants found in contempt of court; custodial sentences imposed, mostly suspended.

Orders

  • Benjamin Buse: 30 days imprisonment consecutive to existing sentence (not suspended)
  • Biff Whipster: 2 months imprisonment for 8 October 2021 and 30 days for 27 October 2021, both suspended for 2 years