KL v Manchester City Council & Anor [2024] EWCOP 53 (T1) (17 September 2024)

KL v Manchester City Council & Anor [2024] EWCOP 53 (T1) (17 September 2024)

Michael Adamou was properly served, had sufficient notice, and intentionally breached the clear terms of the injunction order by remaining in or near the protected party's property. All alleged breaches were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The court was justified in proceeding in his absence due to his deliberate non-attendance and the need to avoid prejudice to the protected party.

Citation
[2024] EWCOP 53
Parties
Applicant: KL; First Respondent/claimant: Manchester City Council; Second Respondent/defendant: Michael Adamou; Litigation Friend for KL: Grace Whitrick
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Committal Application in Court of Protection Proceedings / Judgment on Liability for Contempt, Adjourned for Sentencing
Outcome
All alleged breaches of the injunction are proven; Michael Adamou is found in contempt of court. Sentencing adjourned.
Legal Topics
Committal Proceedings, Breach of Injunction, Service of Process, Absence of Defendant, Standard of Proof in Contempt, Mens Rea in Contempt
Court of Protection Contempt of Court Injunctions Committal Proceedings Breach of Injunction Service of Process Absence of Defendant Standard of Proof in Contempt +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KL

Applicant

Manchester City Council

First Respondent/claimant

Michael Adamou

Second Respondent/defendant

Grace Whitrick

Litigation Friend for KL

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Michael Adamou breached the injunction order of 25 June 2024 by remaining in or near the protected party's property
  2. 2 Whether the court should proceed in the absence of the defendant
  3. 3 Whether the breaches are proven to the criminal standard

Ratio Decidendi

Michael Adamou was properly served, had sufficient notice, and intentionally breached the clear terms of the injunction order by remaining in or near the protected party's property. All alleged breaches were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The court was justified in proceeding in his absence due to his deliberate non-attendance and the need to avoid prejudice to the protected party.

Court Disposition

All alleged breaches of the injunction are proven; Michael Adamou is found in contempt of court. Sentencing adjourned.

Orders

  • Findings of contempt entered against Michael Adamou for breaches (a)-(h) of the injunction order dated 25 June 2024.
  • Order to be served personally and by email on Michael Adamou.