Lioubov Macpherson v Sunderland City Council

Lioubov Macpherson v Sunderland City Council

The appellant knowingly and deliberately breached valid court orders; her disagreement with the orders and assertions of professional misconduct do not justify non-compliance. The proceedings were fair, and the sentence of immediate imprisonment was proportionate given repeated contempt.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Lioubov Macpherson; Respondent: Sunderland City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Committal for Contempt and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Court of Protection, Committal Proceedings, Capacity Assessment, Injunctions, Article 6 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR, Proportionality, Best Interests, Procedural Fairness
Mental Capacity Human Rights Contempt of Court Court of Protection Committal Proceedings Capacity Assessment Injunctions Article 6 ECHR +5 more

Source-derived case record

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lioubov Macpherson

Appellant

Sunderland City Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Committal for Contempt and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant acted in contempt of court by breaching injunctions
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings before Poole J on 22 January 2024 were fair
  3. 3 Whether the punishment imposed was fair and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant knowingly and deliberately breached valid court orders; her disagreement with the orders and assertions of professional misconduct do not justify non-compliance. The proceedings were fair, and the sentence of immediate imprisonment was proportionate given repeated contempt.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Sentence of three months' imprisonment for contempt upheld
  • Activation of earlier suspended sentence of 28 days to run consecutively