[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Runnymede Borough Council, R (on the application of) v Fulke-Grenville [2007] EWHC 1647 (Admin) (02 July 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/1647.html Cite as: [2007] EWHC 1647 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		2 July 2007

1. MR JUSTICE BEATSON: This is an application by the Runnymede Borough Council for the committal of the first defendant, Christopher Fulke-Grenville, for a breach of an order of Mr Justice Jowitt given as long ago as 10 October 1996 and also an application to amend the terms of the order.
2. The application relates to the use by the first defendant of his property, 35 Liberty Rise, Addlestone, to park, store and sell motor vehicles and to park or store vehicles in such a way as to obstruct the highway on the adjacent street to the property. The order and injunction was made both against the first defendant and his wife, but this application relates only to the first defendant.
3. The first defendant was properly served and has, over a period since April 2007, asked the court to adjourn it. In a letter dated 3 April he states that he is away on business for the company for which he works and that his daughters are getting married in July. One daughter is in Ireland, and the other is marrying a prison officer. He states that his witnesses will not be back in the United Kingdom until 8 July, and that he intends to offer the court a defence to the action brought. This application was refused by the court.
4. There was a further letter dated 17 April, providing material which the defendant wished to be placed before the judge hearing the matter and stating that he would be back in late July to defend th application. On 11 June he wrote again asking the listing officer to put the case back to August because his father was in hospital and is terminally ill. He asked the court to inform the claimant because, he stated, although he has done so, the claimant has a tendency to ignore him. On the same date, 11 June, he wrote to the court clerk reiterating the matters in the letter to the listing officer, adding that he cannot cope with all of this especially with his mother dying in February.
5. On 5 June the first defendant wrote a letter explaining why he was unable to attend. On 19 June he wrote again asking for an adjournment, stating that he had written letters asking for an adjournment but received no reply or confirmation that the adjournment had been granted. He stated that he is sorry for any signs of contempt that it is considered he has shown and promised never to breach any court ruling in the future. He stated that he is depressed and he feels that he cannot go on. His daughters are getting married and he needs to be at their sides. His father is terminally ill. The Administrative Court Office instructed him to make a formal application to the court on notice to the claimant. There has been no such application.
6. Today, Mr Emmett, on behalf of the council, invited me to make the order of committal although the first defendant has not appeared. I have read the evidence submitted by the claimant, in particular the affidavit of Mr Knight but also the other affidavits. There are affidavits by Mr Langstone dated 9 April 1997, Mr Bennett on 9 March 2007, 25 and 26 June 2007. Am I right that there was a third affidavit from Mr Bennett?
7. MR EMMETT: Just two.
8. MR JUSTICE BEATSON: And Ms Denise Worley on 9 March 2007, Mr Mainwaring on 11 January 2007, Ms Wiehahm on 19 December 2006 and Ms Griffiths on 11 January 2007. It appears on the basis of these affidavits that the claimants have a strong prima facie case of continual breaches by the first defendant of Mr Justice Jowitt's order.
9. The explanation given for the passage of time since the order was made, and the non-enforcement by committal proceedings before these proceedings were instituted on 20 March 2007, can be summarised by stating that the council decided to institute committal proceedings in January 1997 but in February 1997 the first defendant began trading from business premises at Station Road and the proceedings were dropped.
10. When breaches were observed again in 1998 the position was reviewed. But between January and October 1999 the first defendant was serving a sentence of imprisonment for offences of deception and false trading description. He has in the interim period also served other sentences of imprisonment for fair trading offences brought by the Fair Trading Standards officers or the Office of Fair Trading, including contempt proceedings for a breach of an order made in March 2000 at Guildford County Court by District Judge Williams.
11. The recent offending alleged is based on observations in July 2006 made by a drive-by inspection subsequently backed by a warrant issued on 9 August 2006 which was executed on 7 September 2006. The affidavits give details about the cars found on the premises and the adjacent road, the names or lack of names available at the DVLC of registered keepers and the evidence as to those. Against the background of visits in 2004 by trading standard officers and witness statements used in connection with trading standards prosecutions, there would appear to be a long period of non-compliance with these orders.
12. In view of the time for which this matter has proceeded, the fact that Mr Emmett, fairly, could not give me any reason for urgency other than the understandable desire of the claimant to conclude this matter, I have decided to adjourn this hearing. I should make it clear that I do not adjourn it until 28 July, when the first defendant has said he will be available. I am going to adjourn it for seven days. The claimant is entitled to proper legal process and the first defendant is not entitled to frustrate the claimant by non-appearance at the court.
13. The first defendant's applications for adjournments contained in informal letters to the court are remarkable for their lack of specificity, first, as to his precise whereabouts and, secondly, as to the nature and location o fhis work, the nature of his father's illness and the location of the hospital he is or has been in. The first defendant has been able to communicate with the court which has, as recently as today, received a letter, presumably posted by him last week, putting further material before the court, in part, of his defence against the claimant's application.
14. The claimant has informed me that the first defendant is due to be tried on further trading standards offences and that the trial is listed for 26 and 27 July. In his application for an adjournment until 28 July the first defendant makes no reference to this matter. The court will want a full explanation of this. The first defendant should understand that the court having adjourned the matter on this occasion because of the important personal liberty implications in the order sought by the claimant, he must attend when the case is next listed and that his failure to attend will not be regarded by the court as a reason for not proceeding with the committal.
15. I asked Mr Emmett if he was inviting me to make a suspended committal order. He said, no, he was seeking an immediate committal. It is an immediate committal that I am not prepared to make today. The court that is next seised of this may well conclude if the defendant does not attend that he is engaging in the sort of manipulative conduct about which Mr Justice Jowitt commented when he made the order in 1996. The claimant is to have liberty to apply for the costs of this hearing. The matter to be dealt with by the judge on the return date when any explanation given by the first defendant can be considered.

Is there anything else, Mr Emmett?

16. MR EMMETT: Those instructing me are slightly concerned that they may not be able to serve the order within seven days.
17. MR JUSTICE BEATSON: We are on 2 July. How soon can you serve it?
18. MR EMMETT: It is a question of being able to locate Mr Fulke-Grenville.
19. MR JUSTICE BEATSON: Do you want to apply for substituted service?
20. MR EMMETT: Yes, if we could have substituted service. I believe there is a reference to his solicitors, the Castleton Partnership.
21. MR JUSTICE BEATSON: Let us work out where you would exercise it. There are premises.
22. MR EMMETT: I understand we do not think they are instructed. So we would prefer an order for service at the premises, that is 35 Liberty Rise, Addlestone.
23. MR JUSTICE BEATSON: Before I make that order which I am minded to make, can I confirm has there been difficulty serving him in the past?
24. MR EMMETT: Yes, always.
25. MR JUSTICE BEATSON: Mr Emmett makes an application for substituted service on the first defendant relying, in part, on the difficulties that have arisen in the past on serving the first defendant. I grant permission for substituted service, for service to be at the property 35 Liberty Rise, Addlestone, Surrey. Is there anything else, Mr Emmett?
26. MR EMMETT: No.
---