London Borough of Lambeth & Ors v Pead [2013] EWHC 1419 (QB) (10 April 2013)

London Borough of Lambeth & Ors v Pead [2013] EWHC 1419 (QB) (10 April 2013)

The defendant was found to have breached the injunction by continuing to publish and allow the presence of prohibited material online, sending harassing communications, and failing to take reasonable steps to comply with the court's orders. The breaches were proved to the criminal standard and constituted contempt of court. The defendant's apology was equivocal and insufficient to purge the contempt. Costs were awarded to the claimants as the proceedings were justified and necessary.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 1419
Parties
Claimant: London Borough of Lambeth & Others; Defendant: Mr. Brian Pead
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court / Breach of Injunction (civil) / Judgment Following Committal Application
Outcome
Defendant found in contempt of court; sentenced to 28 days' imprisonment; application to purge contempt refused; costs awarded to claimants.
Legal Topics
Breach of Injunction, Harassment, Privacy, Defamation, Civil Contempt, Costs
Civil Procedure Injunctions Contempt of Court Breach of Injunction Harassment Privacy Defamation Civil 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Lambeth & Others

Claimant

Mr. Brian Pead

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court / Breach of Injunction (civil) / Judgment Following Committal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached the terms of the injunction granted on 7th February 2013
  2. 2 Whether the breaches amounted to contempt of court
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's application to purge contempt should be accepted

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was found to have breached the injunction by continuing to publish and allow the presence of prohibited material online, sending harassing communications, and failing to take reasonable steps to comply with the court's orders. The breaches were proved to the criminal standard and constituted contempt of court. The defendant's apology was equivocal and insufficient to purge the contempt. Costs were awarded to the claimants as the proceedings were justified and necessary.

Court Disposition

Defendant found in contempt of court; sentenced to 28 days' imprisonment; application to purge contempt refused; costs awarded to claimants.

Orders

  • Defendant sentenced to 28 days' imprisonment for contempt of court.
  • Defendant's application to purge contempt refused.