Sunderland City Council v Lioubov Macpherson

Sunderland City Council v Lioubov Macpherson

The Defendant deliberately breached clear and specific court orders by posting online material identifying FP and publicising details of the proceedings, constituting serious contempts of court. The breaches were admitted, deliberate, and caused significant invasion of FP’s privacy and risked harm to her mental health. Although there were procedural defects in service, no injustice was caused and the court waived them. The appropriate sentence is 28 days’ imprisonment for each contempt, to run concurrently, but suspended for 12 months due to mitigating factors including removal of material and potential harm to FP and the Defendant’s husband if imprisoned. Reporting restrictions on the...

Parties
Claimant: Sunderland City Council; Defendant: Lioubov Macpherson; First Respondent (substantive Proceedings): FP (by her Litigation Friend, NS)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court / Committal Application / Judgment and Sentencing
Outcome
Five admitted contempts of court proved; Defendant sentenced to 28 days’ imprisonment for each, to run concurrently, sentence suspended for 12 months on condition of no further contempt.
Legal Topics
Breach of Injunction, Reporting Restrictions, Open Justice, Best Interests of Protected Person, Sentencing for Contempt
Mental Health Law Court of Protection Contempt of Court Human Rights Breach of Injunction Reporting Restrictions Open Justice Best Interests of Protected Person +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sunderland City Council

Claimant

Lioubov Macpherson

Defendant

FP (by her Litigation Friend, NS)

First Respondent (substantive Proceedings)

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court / Committal Application / Judgment and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant committed contempt of court by breaching injunctive orders prohibiting publication of material relating to Court of Protection proceedings and the protected person (FP)
  2. 2 Whether procedural defects in service of orders invalidate the committal applications
  3. 3 Whether reporting restrictions should prevent identification of the Defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant deliberately breached clear and specific court orders by posting online material identifying FP and publicising details of the proceedings, constituting serious contempts of court. The breaches were admitted, deliberate, and caused significant invasion of FP’s privacy and risked harm to her mental health. Although there were procedural defects in service, no injustice was caused and the court waived them. The appropriate sentence is 28 days’ imprisonment for each contempt, to run concurrently, but suspended for 12 months due to mitigating factors including removal of material and potential harm to FP and the Defendant’s husband if imprisoned. Reporting restrictions on the...

Court Disposition

Five admitted contempts of court proved; Defendant sentenced to 28 days’ imprisonment for each, to run concurrently, sentence suspended for 12 months on condition of no further contempt.

Orders

  • Defendant sentenced to 28 days’ imprisonment for each of five contempts, sentences to run concurrently, suspended for 12 months until 15 January 2024, conditional on no further contempt.
  • Reporting restrictions on Defendant’s identity lifted; Defendant and Claimant may be named in reporting of committal and substantive proceedings.