The Court of Appeal has dismissed Ms Y’s appeal against a High Court order committing her to prison for civil contempt after she continued to occupy a Dublin property covered by a possession order.
In a redacted judgment delivered on 21 June 2018, Mr Justice Michael Peart said the appeal concerned the High Court’s entitlement to make the committal order. It did not determine any new claim to possession. Ms Y remains detained until she purges her contempt and is released under a further High Court order.
The possession order was made in May 2015 and required Ms Y to vacate and deliver up possession of the specified property. Her appeal against that order was dismissed in February 2017. The Court of Appeal said the claimed entitlement to occupy the property, based on a family law settlement with Mr AB, had already been decided against her and could not be raised again to challenge the 2018 committal order.
Ms Y did not dispute that she continued to occupy the property. Her case was that the settlement entitled her to remain there and meant she had not breached the order. The Court rejected that argument, along with her submissions that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to commit for civil contempt, that she had not been served with the order in time, and that the copy served was not attested.
The court also rejected her complaint that she had been unrepresented. It noted that she had not applied for legal aid in the High Court, had time to seek a solicitor, and had represented herself. The Court of Appeal had recommended legal aid for her appeal, but she said she could not access a solicitor from prison.
The judgment considered whether an alternative to imprisonment could secure compliance. It noted that Ms Y’s two teenage children continued to live at the property and were being cared for there by a friend of their father, Ms Y’s former partner. The receiver had not sought possession while she was in prison because of the children’s presence. The court said eviction or prosecution would not achieve the same coercive effect and found no other alternative identified that would secure compliance.
The court said civil contempt committal should initially be coercive and a person should have a reasonable opportunity to comply. It concluded that the High Court was entitled to commit Ms Y given her continued refusal to comply with the order. She may apply to the High Court at any time to purge her contempt by undertaking to vacate with her children, never return, and acknowledge that she is bound by the order.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It said any change to the situation would require Ms Y to purge her contempt or a further order of the High Court.