High Speed Two Ltd v Maxey & Ors [2022] EWHC 1010 (QB) (28 March 2022)

High Speed Two Ltd v Maxey & Ors [2022] EWHC 1010 (QB) (28 March 2022)

The court approved the consent order because the defendants admitted contempt, apologised, and gave binding undertakings not to repeat the conduct, and the claimant considered this outcome satisfactory. The public interest in deterring disobedience and upholding the rule of law was balanced by the pragmatic resolution, the absence of recent similar conduct, and the likelihood that the undertakings would be effective. The approval was given with reluctance, as custodial sentences would likely have been imposed otherwise.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1010 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: High Speed Two Limited; Defendant: Larch Maxey; Defendant: Daniel Hooper; Defendant: Isla Sandford; Defendant: Juliet Stevenson-Clark; Defendant: Bethany Cooke
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Committal for Contempt of Court / Approval of Consent Order, Pre Hearing
Outcome
Consent order approved; committal application dismissed by consent with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Protest and Direct Action, Court Orders Enforcement, Undertakings to Court
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Public Law Committal for Contempt Protest and Direct Action Court Orders Enforcement Undertakings to Court

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

High Speed Two Limited

Claimant

Larch Maxey

Defendant

Daniel Hooper

Defendant

Isla Sandford

Defendant

Juliet Stevenson-Clark

Defendant

Bethany Cooke

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Committal for Contempt of Court / Approval of Consent Order, Pre Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should approve a consent order disposing of a committal application for contempt of court after admitted breaches of court orders by protestors.

Ratio Decidendi

The court approved the consent order because the defendants admitted contempt, apologised, and gave binding undertakings not to repeat the conduct, and the claimant considered this outcome satisfactory. The public interest in deterring disobedience and upholding the rule of law was balanced by the pragmatic resolution, the absence of recent similar conduct, and the likelihood that the undertakings would be effective. The approval was given with reluctance, as custodial sentences would likely have been imposed otherwise.

Court Disposition

Consent order approved; committal application dismissed by consent with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Defendants admit contempt of court.
  • Defendants to apologise to the court.