Sunderland City Council v Macpherson (Rev1) [2023] EWCOP 3 (20 January 2023)

Sunderland City Council v Macpherson (Rev1) [2023] EWCOP 3 (20 January 2023)

The Defendant deliberately breached clear court orders prohibiting publication of material relating to FP, constituting serious contempt of court. Procedural defects in service were waived due to absence of prejudice. Reporting restrictions on the Defendant's identity are not justified under new COPR rules; her name may be reported, but FP's identity and placement remain protected. The breaches warrant a proportionate sentence for contempt.

Citation
[2023] EWCOP 3
Parties
Claimant: Sunderland City Council; Defendant: Lioubov Macpherson; First Respondent: FP (by Litigation Friend NS)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Committal Application for Contempt of Court / Judgment and Sentencing
Outcome
Defendant found in contempt of court for five admitted breaches; procedural defects waived; reporting restrictions varied to permit naming Defendant.
Legal Topics
Breach of Injunctive Orders, Reporting Restrictions, Open Justice, Mental Capacity, Privacy, Sentencing for Contempt
Court of Protection Contempt of Court Human Rights Breach of Injunctive Orders Reporting Restrictions Open Justice Mental Capacity Privacy +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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sunderland City Council

Claimant

Lioubov Macpherson

Defendant

FP (by Litigation Friend NS)

First Respondent

Procedural Posture

Committal Application for Contempt of Court / Judgment and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant breached injunctive orders amounting to contempt of court
  2. 2 Whether procedural defects in service should be waived
  3. 3 Whether reporting restrictions should be maintained or varied

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant deliberately breached clear court orders prohibiting publication of material relating to FP, constituting serious contempt of court. Procedural defects in service were waived due to absence of prejudice. Reporting restrictions on the Defendant's identity are not justified under new COPR rules; her name may be reported, but FP's identity and placement remain protected. The breaches warrant a proportionate sentence for contempt.

Court Disposition

Defendant found in contempt of court for five admitted breaches; procedural defects waived; reporting restrictions varied to permit naming Defendant.

Orders

  • Defendant's name may be reported in committal and substantive Court of Protection proceedings.
  • Reporting of FP's identity and placement is prohibited.