Marina Developments Ltd v the Owner/s of M/y "Durando"

Factual and Procedural Background

Company A, which owns and operates marinas including one at Torquay, brought an action in rem against the vessel Durando on 4 November 2025 claiming £2,370.88 in unpaid marina charges plus interest and costs. A warrant of arrest was issued and, from 5 November 2025, the Durando was physically at Company A's marina but in the lawful custody of the Admiralty Marshal under arrest. The contempt application was made by Form N600 dated 10 December 2025. The Defendant attended the marina after the arrest, stating he wished only to clean, install batteries and take photographs; he was informed he had no entitlement to sell the vessel while under arrest. On 28 November 2025 marina staff, including the marina supervisor, discovered by CCTV that the vessel had been removed: footage showed a man entering the marina by tailgating, carrying a toolbox and an apparent fuel can, piloting the vessel away and later towing it on a trailer behind a BMW SUV (registration number redacted as [Registration]).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Defendant removed the Durando from the marina while the vessel was under arrest and thereby committed contempt of court.
2. Whether the court should proceed with the contempt hearing and make findings in the Defendant's absence.
3. What sanctions, if any, are appropriate for the contempt and whether purging by return of the vessel or payment should affect sentencing.

Arguments of the Parties

Claimant's Arguments (Company A)

• CCTV evidence establishes a sequence showing a man removing the vessel from the marina and towing it away.
• The Defendant had been told he had no entitlement to sell the vessel while under arrest.
• Proceeding in the Defendant's absence was appropriate because he had adequate notice, his recent email made the key factual admission, and further delay would unduly prejudice Company A.
• The court should exercise its discretion to proceed and make a finding of contempt; immediate custody is a possible sentence though mitigation would be considered if the vessel were returned or substantial payment made.

Defendant's Arguments

• In an email to Attorney Bishop the Defendant stated he could not afford to attend the hearing in London and described the factual position: "I removed the vessel whilst it was under arrest. Obviously it was not my vessel but I accept I put it there so responsibility falls on me." He offered to pay "£200 per month" towards costs and said he was on Universal Credit with no assets or savings.
• The email did not in express words admit contempt, but admitted the key factual matter of removal of the vessel.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Judge Baker analysed two linked issues: identity (whether the man shown on CCTV was the Defendant) and whether to proceed in the Defendant's absence. The court found the Defendant's recent email to Company A's solicitor, which admitted removing the vessel and offered to pay £200 per month, constituted a full and open admission of the central factual issue (identity/removal). Applying the familiar discretion to proceed in a party's absence (as explained in Sanchez and applied in XL Insurance and ICBC), the judge ran through the standard considerations: service and notice (satisfied), opportunity to prepare (satisfied), the credibility of the Defendant's excuse for non-attendance (rejected as not credible and dishonest), waiver of the right to be present, the likelihood that adjourning would not secure attendance, absence of prejudice to the Defendant because he had already given his factual account, undue prejudice to Company A from delay, and that the overriding objective supported proceeding. On that basis the court proceeded in the Defendant's absence and was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendant had acted in contempt by removing the vessel while it was under arrest and in the custody of the Admiralty Marshal.

Holding and Implications

Defendant declared in contempt of court.

Direct effects and procedural consequences stated by the court:

• The court made a formal declaration of contempt and will adjourn for sentencing rather than impose punishment immediately.
• The Defendant is to be given one further opportunity to appear and to present mitigation or take steps to purge or lessen the contempt (for example by returning the vessel to Company A or making significant payment toward the debt).
• The court indicated immediate custody is a realistic sentencing option to be seriously considered if purging or mitigation does not occur; if the Defendant does not provide satisfactory assurance of attendance at the sentencing hearing a bench warrant will be issued for his arrest prior to that date.
• No broader precedent was declared beyond the court applying established discretion and authorities to the facts of this case.