North Warwickshire Borough Council v Sarah Benn [2022] EWHC 1499 (QB) (11 May 2022)

North Warwickshire Borough Council v Sarah Benn [2022] EWHC 1499 (QB) (11 May 2022)

The defendant admitted two breaches of an interim injunction prohibiting protest activities within a defined buffer zone at Kingsbury Oil Terminal. The breaches were deliberate but fell within the lowest harm category. The defendant's time spent in custody (8 days) was deemed a more severe sanction than warranted by the breaches, so no financial penalty was imposed. No order as to costs was made due to the claimant's failure to provide a costs schedule.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1499 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: North Warwickshire Borough Council; Defendant: Sarah Benn
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court (civil) / Sentencing/final Judgment
Outcome
No order on the breaches; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Contempt of Court, Protest Law, Sentencing for Breach of Injunction
Civil Procedure Public Order Environmental Law Interim Injunctions Contempt of Court Protest Law Sentencing for Breach of Injunction

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

North Warwickshire Borough Council

Claimant

Sarah Benn

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court (civil) / Sentencing/final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached the terms of the interim injunction order
  2. 2 Appropriate penalty for admitted breaches of the injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant admitted two breaches of an interim injunction prohibiting protest activities within a defined buffer zone at Kingsbury Oil Terminal. The breaches were deliberate but fell within the lowest harm category. The defendant's time spent in custody (8 days) was deemed a more severe sanction than warranted by the breaches, so no financial penalty was imposed. No order as to costs was made due to the claimant's failure to provide a costs schedule.

Court Disposition

No order on the breaches; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • No financial penalty imposed due to time spent in custody.
  • No order as to costs.