Tuohy v Bell (2002)

A tenant was committed to prison for failing to comply with a possession order.

The trustee in bankruptcy for Mr and Mrs Tuohy obtained a court order against them for the sale of their matrimonial home, with possession to be given by 11 October 2001. In August 2001 the trustee obtained a warrant for possession, as he knew that the couple would not leave voluntarily. The bailiff tried to execute this warrant on 15 October 2001 but Mr and Mrs Tuohy refused to leave. The trustee in bankruptcy applied for them to be committed to prison for contempt of court in refusing to comply with the order for possession and the warrant. At the time that the application was heard, later in October, Mrs Tuohy had left the property. The application was defective, so the judge adjourned the hearing until 5 November in order for Mr Tuohy to obtain legal representation. He warned Mr Tuohy that if he failed to comply with the order for possession he could be sent to prison. At the adjourned hearing, Mr Tuohy said that he would not leave unless he was thrown out or sent to prison. Mr Tuohy could have applied to set the warrant aside, but unless he had done the warrant was valid. Mr. Tuohy was committed to prison for seven days, so that possession could be obtained peacefully. Mr Tuohy appealed.

HELD: The Court of Appeal found that the warrant for possession had be issued before the date on which possession was to be given up, and therefore Mr Tuohy was not in contempt of court for obstructing its execution. However, as Mr Tuohy had said that he would not comply with the order for possession the committal order was upheld, in order to allow possession to be obtained peacefully.

Although this case concerned the repossession of a property after a bankruptcy,judge the issues would be applicable to other possession actions such as defaulting tenants. Mr Tuohy was committed to prison for seven days because he had failed to comply with the possession order, had impeded the bailiff and had told the judge that he had no intention of complying with the possession order.

Citation: Tuohy v Bell (2002) EWCA Civ 423