Ketley v Brent & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 324 (21 February 2012)

Ketley v Brent & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 324 (21 February 2012)

Mr Brent was in contempt for failing to comply with a court order to vacate property; his arguments regarding human rights violations, adjournment, and legal representation did not justify setting aside the committal order. The only lawful route to challenge judicial acts is by appeal, which was not open to him, and the judge's exercise of discretion in refusing adjournment was proper.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 324
Parties
Respondent: Forresters Ketley; Appellant: Brent; Other: Leonie Palette
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Civil Restraint Orders, Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 ECHR, Judicial Immunity
Civil Procedure Human Rights Contempt of Court Committal for Contempt Civil Restraint Orders Human Rights Act 1998 Article 6 ECHR Judicial Immunity

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Forresters Ketley

Respondent

Brent

Appellant

Leonie Palette

Other

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the committal order for contempt was lawful and should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether Mr Brent's human rights were infringed by previous judicial acts
  3. 3 Whether Mr Brent was entitled to adjournment or legal representation at the committal hearing

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Brent was in contempt for failing to comply with a court order to vacate property; his arguments regarding human rights violations, adjournment, and legal representation did not justify setting aside the committal order. The only lawful route to challenge judicial acts is by appeal, which was not open to him, and the judge's exercise of discretion in refusing adjournment was proper.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against committal order dismissed
  • Application to appeal to Supreme Court refused