Birmingham City Council & Anor v Yardley

Birmingham City Council & Anor v Yardley

There was no procedural irregularity in the handing down of the judgment; the injunction and committal orders were valid and proportionate; there was no breach of human rights; and no apparent bias or procedural irregularity was established. The appeal and applications for permission were without merit and dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Birmingham City Council; Claimant: Bryan Nott; Defendant: Paul Charles Royston Yardley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Applications for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed; applications for permission to appeal refused with costs
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Committal for Contempt, Nuisance, Harassment, Misfeasance in Public Office, Procedural Irregularity, Bias, European Convention on Human Rights
Civil Procedure Public Law Human Rights Injunctions Committal for Contempt Nuisance Harassment Misfeasance in Public Office +3 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Birmingham City Council

Claimant

Bryan Nott

Claimant

Paul Charles Royston Yardley

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Applications for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judgment was properly handed down in open court
  2. 2 Validity of injunction and committal orders in light of alleged procedural irregularities
  3. 3 Whether the injunction was too wide or breached human rights under ECHR Articles 6, 10, and 11

Ratio Decidendi

There was no procedural irregularity in the handing down of the judgment; the injunction and committal orders were valid and proportionate; there was no breach of human rights; and no apparent bias or procedural irregularity was established. The appeal and applications for permission were without merit and dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; applications for permission to appeal refused with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Applications for permission to appeal refused