Ketley v Brent & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

The background to this appeal involves a longstanding dispute between a patent agent firm, Company A, and the Appellant, who was their client. Company A sued the Appellant for fees and expenses in 1993, resulting in proceedings that have continued for over 18 years. Various court orders required the Appellant to pay money, which he failed to comply with, prompting Company A to seek charging orders over a residential property occupied by the Appellant and a third party. Multiple charging orders were made between 2004 and 2005.

Company A initiated proceedings under Part 8 of the CPR in 2007 seeking an order for sale of the property. The court ordered the Appellant to vacate the property by March 2010, but he failed to do so. Subsequent mandatory injunctions required the Appellant to vacate by January 2011, which he again failed to comply with. The Appellant’s applications for permission to appeal against these orders were refused as without merit.

Extended civil restraint orders were issued against the Appellant in 2005 and extended in 2007 and 2009, restricting his ability to issue claims or take court steps without permission. Following continued non-compliance, Company A applied for a committal order in January 2011. The Appellant was granted emergency legal aid for representation, but at the hearing in March 2011, neither he nor his solicitors appeared. The judge considered medical evidence and found the Appellant fit to attend, refused adjournment and recusal applications, found the Appellant in contempt for failing to vacate the property, and imposed a suspended prison sentence.

The Appellant did not vacate the property by the extended deadline but reportedly did not serve any prison time. He now appeals the committal order made in March 2011.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the committal order for contempt, based on the Appellant’s failure to vacate the property, was properly made.
2. Whether the Appellant’s attempts to bring proceedings under section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998 against judicial acts are permissible.
3. Whether the Appellant was entitled to legal representation and an adjournment at the committal hearing due to illness.
4. Whether the procedural rules applicable to the committal hearing complied with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant contended that decisions in the underlying proceedings infringed his human rights and sought to vindicate those rights under section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
• He argued he had a freestanding right to bring proceedings against judges for breaches of his human rights, relying on CPR 7.11.
• He claimed the committal application was a criminal case under Article 6 ECHR, entitling him to legal aid and protection under the Criminal Procedure Rules rather than the Civil Procedure Rules.
• The Appellant sought an adjournment of the committal hearing due to illness and the absence of legal representation.
• He challenged the fairness of the hearing and the judge’s refusal to adjourn or recuse himself.

Court's Arguments and Findings

• The court emphasized the extended civil restraint orders prevented the Appellant from bringing claims without permission, which he lacked for his human rights claims.
• The court held that High Court judges have judicial immunity from suit when acting judicially, including in relation to human rights claims under the Human Rights Act.
• The court found that the Appellant’s only route to challenge judicial acts is by way of appeal, which he had repeatedly been refused permission to pursue.
• The court rejected the argument that the committal hearing should have been conducted under the Criminal Procedure Rules, explaining that classification under the ECHR does not change domestic procedural rules.
• The judge exercised discretion properly in refusing adjournment and recusal, finding the Appellant was fit to attend and that stress-related illness did not justify adjournment.
• The court found the Appellant was in contempt for failing to comply with court orders to vacate the property, an undisputed fact supported by the Appellant’s own witness statement.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by situating the appeal within the context of prolonged litigation and multiple court orders requiring the Appellant to vacate a property. The Appellant’s failure to comply with these orders justified contempt proceedings. The court carefully considered the Appellant’s attempts to litigate alleged human rights breaches via section 7 of the Human Rights Act but found these attempts barred by the extended civil restraint orders and judicial immunity principles established in precedent.

The court emphasized that the proper mechanism to challenge judicial acts is by appeal, which the Appellant had repeatedly been refused permission to pursue. The court further clarified that classification of committal proceedings as criminal for ECHR purposes does not alter the domestic procedural regime, which remained civil in nature.

Regarding the Appellant’s illness and request for adjournment, the court applied established standards for medical evidence and found the Appellant fit to attend, concluding the judge’s refusal to adjourn was a proper exercise of discretion. The court noted the Appellant’s voluntary absence and failure to comply with court orders was undisputed and warranted the finding of contempt.

Finally, the court recognized the suspended sentence had not been activated despite non-compliance, rendering the appeal largely without practical effect.

Holding and Implications

The court's final decision was to DISMISS THE APPEAL.

The direct effect of this decision is that the committal order for contempt against the Appellant stands, affirming the judge’s finding of contempt and the imposition of a suspended prison sentence. The court rejected all substantive grounds of appeal, including challenges based on human rights and procedural fairness. No new precedent was established; rather, the decision reinforced existing principles regarding judicial immunity, the obligation to obey court orders, and procedural rules governing committal proceedings.

The court also imposed a final restriction on further oral hearings of the Appellant’s applications, signaling an end to the prolonged litigation.