THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- McGivern
D: Ms McGivern’s response and witness statement 31. The defendant to a contempt application is not required to file any evidence in response. S/he can simply require the applicant to prove the alleged breaches to the required standard. However, Ms McGivern chose to respond. First, on 10 July 2022, she provided a document titled “ Position Statement ”, verified with a statement of truth. Before setting out details of her case, the following was provided by way of summary: “In broad terms: (a) Ms McGivern visited the Wyton Site in her professional capacity. She had no actual knowledge of the injunction or its relevant aspects; (b) She accepts that, in that capacity, she did voluntary acts which were prohibited by the injunction; (c) She avers that in all the circumstances, the contempt application should be dismissed as an abuse of process. 32. The Position Statement admitted the acts alleged against her, as shown in the CCTV footage and particularised in the contempt application, but Ms McGivern denied having knowledge of the Injunction or its terms at the time of the alleged breach. The statement concluded: “… Ms McGivern has reported herself to the SRA. She takes the view that, if found to be in contempt of Court, that will lead to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal striking her off, regardless of the penalty (if any) imposed by this Court. Further, a finding of contempt would be likely to inhibit Ms McGivern’s career even if it were allowed to continue. Even pending the hearing of the contempt application, she is unable to practice and to earn her living, so is suffering a significant and continuing penalty” 33. Having considered the Position Statement, on 12 July 2022, the following email was sent to the Claimants’ solicitors by the Court:
“The Judge has now viewed the video footage and he has read Ms McGivern’s Position Statement dated 10 July 2022. The Judge is now considering what further directions should be given as to the contempt application but before doing so he would appreciate the Claimants’ response to the following. The Claimants will have considered the position statement of Ms McGivern. Having regard to its contents, the purposes of contempt proceedings and the principles of proportionality, do the Claimants intend to proceed with their contempt application against her?” Mills & Reeve responded to that email, on 13 July 2022: “Having considered the Position Statement of Ms McGivern, and noting that no formal admissions are being made, but instead what is being claimed is that it’s an abuse of process and that Ms McGivern did not have knowledge of the injunction, the Claimants intend to proceed with the application...”
34.
443
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator