KL v Manchester City Council & Anor

KL v Manchester City Council & Anor

The respondent was properly served, had notice, and intentionally breached the clear terms of the injunction order by remaining at and within 200 metres of the protected party's property. All alleged breaches were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The court was justified in proceeding in the respondent's absence given his notice, opportunity to participate, and lack of reasonable excuse for non-attendance.

Parties
Applicant: KL; First Respondent/claimant: Manchester City Council; Second Respondent/defendant: Michael Adamou
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Committal Application in Court of Protection Proceedings / Judgment on Liability for Contempt; Sentencing Adjourned
Outcome
All alleged breaches proven; respondent found in contempt of court. Sentencing adjourned.
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Court of Protection Injunctions, Service of Process, Proceeding in Absence of Respondent, Mens Rea in Contempt
Mental Capacity Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Committal for Contempt Court of Protection Injunctions Service of Process Proceeding in Absence of Respondent Mens Rea in 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KL

Applicant

Manchester City Council

First Respondent/claimant

Michael Adamou

Second Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Committal Application in Court of Protection Proceedings / Judgment on Liability for Contempt; Sentencing Adjourned

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Michael Adamou was served with the committal application and had notice of the hearing
  2. 2 Whether the court should proceed in the absence of the respondent
  3. 3 Whether the respondent breached the injunction order of 25th June 2024

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was properly served, had notice, and intentionally breached the clear terms of the injunction order by remaining at and within 200 metres of the protected party's property. All alleged breaches were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The court was justified in proceeding in the respondent's absence given his notice, opportunity to participate, and lack of reasonable excuse for non-attendance.

Court Disposition

All alleged breaches proven; respondent found in contempt of court. Sentencing adjourned.

Orders

  • Respondent found in contempt of court for breaches of the injunction order dated 25th June 2024.
  • Order to be served personally and by email on the respondent.