London Borough of Barnet v Hurst [2002] EWCA Civ 1009 (17 July 2002)

London Borough of Barnet v Hurst [2002] EWCA Civ 1009 (17 July 2002)

The original sentence of nine months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive for the limited admitted breach of the undertaking. The proper sentence was three months. The judge's adjournment of the balance of the committal application was within her discretion, and the appellate routes in committal proceedings are clarified as set out in the judgment.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1009
Parties
Claimant/respondent: London Borough of Barnet; Defendant/appellant: Rowland Hurst
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (committal for Contempt) / Appeal and Cross Appeal From County Court Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; sentence reduced to three months. Cross-appeal academic; no order except as to costs.
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Breach of Undertaking, Routes of Appeal in Committal Proceedings, Adjournment Pending Criminal Trial, Sentence for Contempt
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Housing Law Committal for Contempt Breach of Undertaking Routes of Appeal in Committal Proceedings Adjournment Pending Criminal Trial Sentence for Contempt

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

Parties

London Borough of Barnet

Claimant/respondent

Rowland Hurst

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (committal for Contempt) / Appeal and Cross Appeal From County Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence of nine months' imprisonment for breach of undertaking was excessive
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in adjourning the balance of the committal application pending criminal proceedings
  3. 3 Clarification of appellate routes in committal proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The original sentence of nine months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive for the limited admitted breach of the undertaking. The proper sentence was three months. The judge's adjournment of the balance of the committal application was within her discretion, and the appellate routes in committal proceedings are clarified as set out in the judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; sentence reduced to three months. Cross-appeal academic; no order except as to costs.

Orders

  • Appellant's sentence reduced from nine months to three months' imprisonment.
  • No order for costs on appellant's appeal except detailed assessment of public funding costs.