Wardglade Ltd v Deery (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiff, Company A, is the owner of premises located at 27/28 Market Street and 34/36 Park Street in The City. By a High Court order dated 7th July 2015 and amended on 24th November 2015, the defendant was restrained from entering or trespassing on these premises. This order was personally served on the defendant.

Subsequent to breaches alleged by the plaintiff, including break-ins and harassment of the plaintiff’s directors and solicitor, the plaintiff applied multiple times for the defendant’s attachment and committal for contempt of court. The defendant failed to comply with court orders and undertakings to vacate the premises, resulting in several arrests and periods of detention in Mountjoy Prison.

Despite undertakings given under oath to obey court orders and to avoid the premises and related persons, the defendant repeatedly breached these undertakings. The court made several orders for his attachment and committal, the most recent being on 2nd December 2020. The defendant was held in custody for 115 days, during which the court periodically reviewed his detention and the necessity thereof.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the defendant was in contempt of court by breaching the 2015 High Court order restraining entry onto the premises.
2. The appropriateness and necessity of committal to prison as a coercive and punitive measure for contempt of court.
3. The conditions under which the defendant’s continued imprisonment should be maintained or terminated.
4. The extent to which the authority of the court has been recognised or vindicated by the defendant’s conduct and undertakings.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The defendant breached the 2015 restraining order by breaking into the premises and harassing the plaintiff’s directors and solicitor.
• The plaintiff sought enforcement of its legal rights to peaceful possession of the property through attachment and committal orders.
• The plaintiff’s objective was solely to secure peaceful enjoyment of its property and not to see the defendant imprisoned indefinitely.

Defendant's Position

• The defendant did not attend court on several occasions and did not honour undertakings given to vacate the premises.
• On one occasion, the defendant indicated he would not “budge,” reflecting a stubborn refusal to comply with court orders.
• The defendant’s conduct appeared to be influenced or encouraged by associates claiming ownership rights through a similarly named company, engaging in break-ins and dressing in a manner to assert such claims.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the defendant’s repeated breaches of the 2015 restraining orders and his failure to comply with undertakings given under oath to vacate the premises and desist from harassment. It emphasised the dual purpose of committal for contempt: coercive—to compel compliance—and punitive—as a sanction for disobedience.

The court recognised the importance of vindicating its authority to maintain the rule of law and the administration of justice. It noted that the defendant had acknowledged the court’s authority only superficially through undertakings which proved ineffective. The court found that the defendant’s conduct, supported by associates claiming ownership through a similarly named company, undermined the plaintiff’s rights and the court’s orders.

While imprisonment is the remedy of last resort and should not endure beyond necessity, the defendant’s stubborn refusal to comply justified his detention initially. However, after 115 days, the court reconsidered whether continued imprisonment was necessary, balancing the plaintiff’s rights, the costs incurred by repeated court proceedings, and the defendant’s conduct.

The court concluded that if the defendant intended to continue defying the court, imprisonment must continue. But if his defiance related only to ownership claims without interfering with the premises or its directors, continued imprisonment was no longer necessary. The court expressed concern that the defendant’s obduracy might impede compliance but ultimately decided to discharge him from custody, allowing the plaintiff to seek re-committal if further disobedience occurred.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision was to DISCHARGE the defendant from custody regarding his contempt.

This decision ends the defendant’s current imprisonment but preserves the plaintiff’s rights to enforce the restraining orders. The court made clear that any further disobedience by the defendant or others aware of the order will be met with contempt proceedings. The plaintiff was awarded costs of the motion and related adjournments, payable by the defendant upon adjudication. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling reaffirmed established principles regarding contempt and committal as enforcement mechanisms for court orders.