Background
Maidstone Borough Council sought Fred King’s committal for civil contempt arising from breaches of court orders concerning Warren Lands, a site in open countryside near the Sandway Conservation Area. The site’s lawful use was as undeveloped agricultural land, but caravans, mobile homes, vehicles, hardstanding and other works had transformed it into a residential settlement.
An interim injunction made in October 2022 restricted additional caravans, structures, engineering works and hard surfacing while permitting King and his dependent family to remain temporarily in one static and one touring caravan. After planning appeals seeking residential and Gypsy/Traveller development were dismissed, a final order made in December 2024 prohibited residential use and required King to remove all mobile homes, caravans and vehicles within one month, and the hardstanding, steel frame and lighting within three months. King admitted breaches of both orders in April 2026, but substantial noncompliance continued.
The Court’s Holding
Mr Justice Griffiths found to the criminal standard that King had not removed all mobile homes and caravans, the vehicles covered by the final order, or the hardstanding. The court accepted that the steel-framed building and lighting apparatus had been removed. Although hardstanding remained, the judge noted that it had not been specified in the contempt application notice.
The court rejected King’s contention that compliance had been impossible. King controlled the site, had caused or permitted the relevant items and occupants to remain, and could have reversed those arrangements. His own assessment that continued occupation benefited the families living there did not entitle him to disregard an unappealed order capable of being obeyed. The court therefore held him in contempt for the admitted breaches of the interim and final orders and for the proved continuing failures to comply with the final order.
The judge also rejected the argument that King’s limited admissions before an earlier deputy judge operated like an agreed criminal “basis of plea.” They narrowed the disputed issues and attracted credit, but did not prevent the court from considering other properly admitted evidence when determining the contempt application and its disposal.
Key Takeaways
- Civil contempt for breaching a court order must be proved to the criminal standard.
- A contemnor cannot restrict the court’s factual inquiry through a unilateral, strategically limited admission; only admitted matters are removed from dispute.
- Personal hardship, housing difficulties and disagreement with a planning decision do not excuse disobedience to an unappealed order that remains capable of compliance.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that planning injunctions are enforceable obligations, not invitations to revisit the merits of refused development. A person subject to such an order must comply unless it is varied, discharged or successfully appealed.
It also clarifies the treatment of admissions in civil contempt proceedings. While admissions may reduce contested issues and mitigate punishment, they do not bind the court to an artificially narrow factual account when broader evidence is relevant to achieving a just disposition.