- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Davies v Lettington
Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant owned land ("the Farm") adjoining property owned by the Respondents. A boundary and right-of-way dispute arose; the Respondents alleged interference with a track and sought orders requiring removal of fences and reinstatement works. The Appellant was represented until 1 July 2024 and then acted as a litigant in person. After a four-day trial in August 2024 the Respondents succeeded and, on 17 October 2024, Judge James granted an injunction with a penal notice requiring the Appellant to carry out specified works.
Applications to stay and to obtain permission to appeal were refused in late 2024 and early 2025. The Respondents applied for committal for civil contempt on 17 February 2025; the Appellant received Form N600 advising of the right to legal representation and a reasonable opportunity to obtain legal aid. The committal application was listed in March 2025 and adjourned; the matter was restored and listed for hearing before Judge James on 19 June 2025. The Appellant appeared as a litigant in person at that hearing and the committal application was heard. Judge James found breaches and directed a further hearing on sanction. That order was drawn up on 25 June 2025.
The committal/sanctions process continued, with the Appellant seeking legal aid and pro bono assistance. Subsequent hearings on 28 July 2025 and later dates followed; the Appellant obtained legal aid and retained Company A on 28 August 2025. The Appellant sought and was granted permission to appeal the orders made on 19 June and 28 July 2025; the appeal was pursued in early 2026.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Judge James failed to give the Appellant accurate information about the availability of legal aid for civil committal proceedings.
- Whether Judge James wrongly refused the Appellant's application to adjourn the hearing on 19 June 2025 to enable the Appellant to obtain legal aid and legal representation.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments (Attorney Bowers and Attorney Jobling)
- Judge James gave inaccurate information about the availability of legal aid for civil committal proceedings.
- Judge James wrongly refused an adjournment to allow the Appellant to secure legal aid and representation; that refusal vitiated the exercise of judicial discretion.
- Supplementary procedural criticisms: incorrect advice about adverse inferences from silence; alleged judicial questioning inconsistent with the Appellant's choice whether to give evidence; and an apparent misapprehension that the Appellant did not wish to give oral evidence when she had sought to do so.
Respondents' Arguments (Attorney Lopez)
- It was for the Appellant to have applied for legal aid before 19 June 2025; no satisfactory explanation was given for failure to do so.
- Judge James was entitled to refuse an adjournment given the case history, the Appellant's demonstrated ability to represent herself and insufficient evidence of genuine attempts to obtain representation or legal aid.
- The court should refuse relief for delay and ongoing non-compliance with the injunction; the Appellant's conduct prejudiced the Respondents.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Hammerton v Hammerton [2007] EWCA Civ 248 | Principles on committal hearings: Article 6 rights apply; defendants entitled to legal assistance if unable to pay and if interests of justice require; adjournment should generally be granted to obtain representation; duty to enquire at outset why unrepresented. | Used to state the court's duty to ask why representation was absent and to consider adjournment to enable representation. |
| Brown v London Borough of Haringey [2015] EWCA Civ 483 | Requirement for fuller enquiry at committal applications as to whether the defendant wants representation and whether funding has been sought; confusion over funding route emphasised. | Relied upon to show the judge's enquiry was insufficient and to highlight the need for awareness of the route to obtain legal aid. |
| O (Committal: Legal Representation) [2019] EWCA Civ 1721 | Respondents to committal proceedings are entitled to representation if they want it; entitlement to non-means-tested legal aid; courts obliged to ensure representation is available; failure may render committal orders procedurally irregular. | Applied to support the conclusion that an adjournment was required where representation was sought and not provided. |
| Corrigan v Chelsea Football Club Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1964 | Example where proceeding without representation was appropriate due to defendant's persistent non-engagement and refusal to participate. | Distinguished from the present case: the Appellant did not display the same pattern of non-engagement that would justify proceeding without representation. |
| King's Lynn and West Norfolk Council v Burning [2015] EWHC 3390 (QB) | Analysis of statutory/regulatory provisions concerning legal aid for committal in High Court; consideration of relevant authority to determine entitlement. | Referred to in tracing the legal framework on how civil committal legal aid is treated and which authority determines entitlement. |
| All England Lawn Tennis Club v McKay [2019] EWHC 3065 (QB) | Concluded entitlement to criminal legal aid as of right (no means test) for High Court committal; Director of Legal Aid Casework is the relevant authority for such determinations. | Used to explain that no means test applies for committal proceedings and to identify the Director of Legal Aid Casework as the appropriate decision-maker. |
| Business Mortgage Finance 4 plc v Hussain [2022] EWCA Civ 1264 | Noted in relation to the right of appeal under CPR r.81.4(2) extending to both parts of committal process. | Referenced to show that appeal rights cover both breach findings and committal/sanctions stages. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analysed the entitlement and procedural protections for defendants in civil committal proceedings. It held that:
- A defendant in committal proceedings is entitled to legal representation if they want it, and the court must ensure the defendant has an accurate understanding of that right and an appropriate opportunity to obtain representation.
- The Appellant made clear at the 19 June hearing that she wanted representation but could not obtain it because of funding and timing difficulties and had sought pro bono assistance; the judge accepted that she genuinely wanted representation.
- There was no evidence of extreme urgency at the 19 June hearing that would justify refusing an adjournment; adjournment to obtain representation should generally have been granted.
- Judge James refused the adjournment in part because he was uncertain whether legal aid was available without a means test. The court analysed statutory and regulatory materials (including LASPO and relevant Regulations) and concluded that no means test applies for legal aid in civil committal proceedings of the kind at issue; the judge's uncertainty therefore involved a legal error.
- Because Judge James misunderstood the availability of non-means-tested legal aid, his refusal to adjourn was vitiated. The court rejected the Respondents' post hoc justifications (competence of the Appellant, insufficiency of proof of attempts to obtain representation, prejudice from delay), noting that these matters were not explored at the hearing and would not justify the refusal.
- The court emphasised that the right to representation is not contingent upon a judge's view of the litigant's competency and that, where necessary, the court should have made appropriate enquiries and, in some circumstances, directed the correct route for obtaining representation.
Holding and Implications
HOLDING: The appeal was allowed. The orders made following the hearings of 19 June 2025 and 28 July 2025 were set aside; the findings of breach made on 19 June 2025 were vacated. The committal application is remitted to the County Court to be heard by a different judge.
Implications: The immediate consequence is that the Appellant's breach findings and subsequent orders are set aside and the committal application will be reheard by another judge. The court's decision reinforces existing authorities on the duty to ensure availability of legal representation in civil committal proceedings and clarifies that, for this category of case, legal aid is not subject to a means test; the opinion remitted proceedings rather than establishing a novel precedent beyond its application of cited authorities.
Alert