THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NICKLIN Approved Judgment
MBR Acres Ltd -v- McGivern
ii) Materially, this required the Claimants to display the Injunction and a letter which explained to the “Persons Unknown” defendants that they could access copies of the evidence in support of the injunction application, the skeleton argument, and a note of the hearing at a designated website address. iii) The Claimants have failed to comply with these requirements because: (a) (as confirmed by Mr Manning’s evidence – see [58] above) only the first page of the covering letter was displayed; (b) the letter, in any event, did not explain that copies of the evidence in support of the injunction application, the skeleton argument and a note of the hearing could be obtained from the designated website address; and
(c)
the Dropbox address provided in the letter was not the Dropbox address that had been stated in the Order.
iv) The Court should require strict compliance with these requirements – proved to the criminal standard – because it is by this process that the Court deems that the relevant person has properly been given notice of the injunction order. 77. Ms Bolton argues, in response, that Mr Manning’s evidence indicates that the full copy of the letter was provided in the box under the noticeboard. H: Decision 78. Although Mr Underwood QC’s arguments on non-compliance with the alternative service order are technical, rather than substantive, in my judgment he is correct to submit that the Court should require strict compliance with the terms of an alternative service order if that is to be relied upon, in a contempt application, as the basis on which notice of the injunction order is to be established. The requirement is to establish service or notice of the injunction order to the criminal standard. Although there appears to be some tension between Cuciurean and Barking as to the basis on which someone becomes bound by an injunction order, the Claimants have relied upon Cuciurean . As such, the Court should require strict adherence to the terms of the alternative service order. The Claimants have failed to comply with those terms for the reasons identified by Mr Underwood QC. Mr Manning’s placing of four copies of the documents in a place different from that directed by the Injunction is no answer, not least because it does not overcome the issue as to the flawed terms of the letter. 79. This decision alone would lead to the dismissal of the contempt application. However, in case I were to be wrong on the service point, and in fairness to Ms McGivern, I will go on to consider the application on the basis that the Claimants have proved, to the criminal standard, that Ms McGivern had been given notice of the Injunction by operation of the alternative service order. 80. At the beginning of her cross-examination, Ms Bolton informed Ms McGivern that she would not be pursuing grounds 1 and 2 in the contempt application. Ms Bolton suggested that was because to do so “ would take up time… that isn’t necessary ”. In fact, and as was probably appreciated (albeit belatedly by the Claimants’ advisors), the first
460
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator