MBR Acres Ltd & Ors v McGivern [2022] EWHC 2072 (QB) (02 August 2022)

MBR Acres Ltd & Ors v McGivern [2022] EWHC 2072 (QB) (02 August 2022)

Ms McGivern could not be found in contempt because the Claimants failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she had knowledge of the injunction and its terms at the time of the alleged breaches. The evidence did not establish that she had seen or was aware of the injunction, and alternative service was not shown to have brought the order to her attention. Procedural fairness and the penal nature of contempt required strict proof of knowledge, which was lacking.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2072 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: MBR Acres Limited; Claimant/applicant: Demetris Markou; Claimant/applicant: B&K Universal Limited; Claimant/applicant: Susan Pressick; Respondent: Gillian Frances McGivern
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application (civil) / Judgment After Final Hearing of Contempt Application
Outcome
Contempt application dismissed
Legal Topics
Alternative Service, Persons Unknown, Knowledge of Injunction, Protest Law, Proportionality, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Injunctions Contempt of Court Alternative Service Persons Unknown Knowledge of Injunction Protest Law Proportionality +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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MBR Acres Limited

Claimant/applicant

Demetris Markou

Claimant/applicant

B&K Universal Limited

Claimant/applicant

Susan Pressick

Claimant/applicant

Gillian Frances McGivern

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application (civil) / Judgment After Final Hearing of Contempt Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Ms McGivern had knowledge of the injunction and its terms at the time of the alleged breaches
  2. 2 Whether the contempt application was an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether alternative service was effective to bring the injunction to Ms McGivern's attention

Ratio Decidendi

Ms McGivern could not be found in contempt because the Claimants failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that she had knowledge of the injunction and its terms at the time of the alleged breaches. The evidence did not establish that she had seen or was aware of the injunction, and alternative service was not shown to have brought the order to her attention. Procedural fairness and the penal nature of contempt required strict proof of knowledge, which was lacking.

Court Disposition

Contempt application dismissed

Orders

  • The contempt application against Ms McGivern is dismissed.
  • No finding of contempt is made against Ms McGivern.