Peach Grey & Company v Sommers
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1995 |
| Year | 1995 |
| Court | Divisional Court |
Contempt of Court - Inferior court - Industrial tribunal - Whether “inferior court” - Whether jurisdiction to punish contempt of industrial tribunal -
The respondent employee, a clerk employed by the applicant employers, a firm of solicitors, resigned in February 1994 and presented an originating application to an industrial tribunal alleging constructive and unfair dismissal. His employers opposed the application. Between 29 March and 6 June 1994 several of the employers' clients, including S., W. and C., gave witness statements to the effect that the employee had improperly asked for and received secret payments in connection with legal aid work done for them while he was employed by the employers. The employers sent the statements to the Solicitors Complaints Bureau with a view to proceedings being taken before the solicitors disciplinary tribunal and on 6 June 1994 informed the solicitor instructed by the employee in the industrial tribunal proceedings of their action. On 24 June 1994 the employers served an amended notice of appearance in the industrial tribunal alleging that between 1989 and 1994 the employee had covertly received moneys from the employers' clients for his own benefit. On 24 July 1994 C. told W. that he was withdrawing his statement, that W. should do the same and that £500 paid by W. to the employee could be given back. Two days later, the employee sent an inquiry agent to obtain confirmation of the withdrawal by C. and/or W. of their statements. C. withdrew his statement but W. refused to see the inquiry agent. On 29 July 1994 the employee's solicitors wrote separately to W. and S., saying that three other people who had made statements had voluntarily admitted that those statements were untrue and suggesting that they should withdraw their statements.
On the employers' motion for an injunction to restrain the employee from further interfering with witnesses and an order under
Held, granting the injunction and committing the employee to prison for one month, that an industrial tribunal was an “inferior court” within the meaning of
Quaere. Whether the court had inherent jurisdiction to punish contempt by interference with witnesses even where the body concerned was not an inferior court within
The following cases are referred to in the judgments:
Attorney-General v. British Broadcasting Corporation [
Badry v. Director of Public Prosecutions [
P. v. Liverpool Daily Post and Echo Newspapers Plc. [
Reg. v. Kellett [
Reg. v. Lucas (Ruth) [
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Attorney-General v. Foy (unreported), 26 October 1987, Simon Brown J.
Rex v. Daily Herald Editor, Printers and Publishers, Ex parte Bishop of Norwich [
Rex v. Davies [
Rex v. Weisz, Ex parte Hector MacDonald Ltd. [
Supply of Ready Mixed Concrete (No. 2), In re [
Motion
By notice of motion dated 19 August 1994 the applicants, Roger Anthony Peach and Janet Grey, practising as solicitors in Southampton under the firm name Peach Grey & Co., sought an order (1) that the respondent, Terrence Ronald Sommers, be committed to prison for his contempt of court in intentionally interfering with the due administration of justice before the Southampton industrial tribunal and/or the solicitors disciplinary tribunal in that he (i) on about 24 July 1994 at Her Majesty's Prison Ford, acting by William Castle, sought to persuade Peter Westwood, a witness or potential witness in pending proceedings before the industrial tribunal and impending proceedings before the solicitors disciplinary tribunal to withdraw his statements, by which he meant withdraw from giving evidence, (ii) on 26 July 1994, using the name of his then employers, Messrs. Culshaws, employed an inquiry agent to go to Ford to obtain confirmation of the withdrawal of statements by Castle and/or Westwood and in the case of Castle obtained such confirmation, (iii) on 29 July 1994, by his solicitors, Messrs. Dibbens Baehr, wrote to Westwood suggesting that he might have been put under pressure to make his statement, that three people who had made statements had voluntarily admitted that those statements were untrue, suggesting that Westwood may now regret making false statements against the respondent and expressing the hope that Westwood would write to the solicitors as soon as possible confirming that his statement was untrue, (iv) on 29 July 1994, by his solicitors, Messrs. Dibbens Baehr, wrote to another witness, Noah Smith, warning Smith that his statements contained inconsistencies which he would have great difficulty in explaining under cross-examination and informing him that three people who had made false statements against the respondent had retracted them and inviting Smith to consider his position; and (2) that the respondent be restrained, whether by himself his servants or agents or otherwise from further interfering with witnesses in connection with the proceedings before the industrial tribunal and/or the solicitors disciplinary tribunal. The grounds of the application were, inter alia, that the respondent's acts were intended to and likely to interfere with and obstruct the course of justice before both the industrial tribunal and the solicitors disciplinary tribunal.
The facts are stated in the judgment of Rose L.J.
Giles Harrap for the applicant employers.
Nigel Baker Q.C. and Nicholas Dean for the respondent employee.
Andrew Hopper, solicitor, for the Law Society.
Rose L.J. There is before the court, with the leave of Gage J. granted on 17 August 1994, an application to commit to prison for contempt of court and other relief under
The applicants are the two partners in a firm of solicitors in Southampton. The respondent is a criminal law clerk who worked for them for six years until early 1994. Much of the relevant history is not in issue and it is convenient to set out the sequence of material events.
On 6 February 1994 the respondent, at the dictation of his solicitor, Mr. Baehr, wrote a letter of resignation from the applicants' employment. On 26 February the respondent complained to an industrial tribunal that he had been constructively and unfairly dismissed. His allegations were twofold. First, that the applicants had failed to comply with their contractual obligations in relation to the contributions for his pension. Secondly, that they had destroyed the trust and confidence necessary in the relationship by, for example, unnecessarily absenting themselves from the office, misrepresenting discussions they had with him in late 1993 and making unreasonable work demands on him in January 1994. Matters came acrimoniously to a head at the end of January and the beginning of February 1994, culminating in the respondent's letter of 6 February to which I have referred.
On 29 March 1994 a man called Noah Smith told the applicant, Mr. Peach, that in relation to proceedings at Swindon Crown Court, for which he had had legal aid, he, Smith, had paid the respondent, who was acting for him, a number of sums of money from February 1992 onwards. There was no record of those payments in the applicants' books. On 31 March Mr. Peach reported this by letter to the Law Society and sought guidance. His letter also referred to the respondent allegedly touting his services to Mr. Smith after the respondent had left the applicants' employment. The letter was passed to the solicitors complaints bureau (the “S.C.B.”).
On 8 April 1994 the applicants entered an appearance to the industrial tribunal proceedings. This denied the respondent's allegations and asserted that the respondent had resigned, alternatively, that if he had been dismissed this was fair and justified because of his unsatisfactory conduct and performance during 1993 and the giving by him of an untrue reason for absence on 3 February 1994. No reference was made in the appearance to Smith's allegations, in relation to which, as I have indicated, the Law Society's guidance was awaited.
On 11 April 1994 another client of the firm, Peter Westwood, apparently independently, told the applicant, Miss Grey, in prison, that he had paid £500 to the respondent in 1989. On 14 April he made and signed a written statement to her about this. It is in the following terms:
“In mid to late 1989 on a date of which I am uncertain I requested of Mr. Terry Sommers a legal clerk employed by Peach...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lewisham and Guys Mental Health NHS Trust v Andrews (Deceased)
...immaterial; thus one may have a cause of action enforceable by arbitration. In any event an ET is a court (see Peach Gray & Co. v Sommers [1995] ICR 549 a case concerned with contempt of court in an ET). 18 The 1934 Act was passed to abolish the common law rule that actions in tort did not ......
-
Re Terence Patrick Ewingthe Claimant Appeared in Person
...Scarman find reflection in the definition of "court" contained in s.19 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. 29 In Peach Grey & Co v Sommers 1995 ICR 549, the Divisional Court was (again in the context of a contempt of court application) concerned to decide whether proceedings before an Indust......
-
Mr N Watson v Hemingway Design Ltd (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) & Others
...[1981] AC 303, per Lord Edmund-Davies at 351F (“largely a matter of impression…”); per Lord Scarman at 358C-E; Peach Grey & Co v. Sommers [1995] ICR 549, per Rose LJ at 557D-H; Turner v. Grovit UKEAT/0007/19/JOJ [2000] 1 QB 345, CA (not reversed on appeal on this point); Vidler v. UNISON [1......
-
Campbell v Secretary of State
...is not confined to courts of law in the narrow or traditional sense. For the reasons given by Rose LJ in Peach Grey & Co v Sommers [1995] ICR 549 at 557, 558 an Employment Tribunal is a "court" in which specified statutory causes of action in the employment field are enforceable. 6. The fal......
-
The chilling effect and the most ancient form of vengeance: discrimination and victimising third parties
...(2008) 36 I.L.J. 364–374, 372.19. Civil Procedure Rules 1998 S.I. 1998/3132, Sch 1, Part 52, Rule 1(2)(a)(iii); Peach Grey vSommers [1995] I.C.R. 549 (Div Ct) 557–559; Harris (Andrews) v Lewisham & Guy’s NHSTrust [2000] I.C.R. 707 (CA), [17], [32].20. CJPO Act 2001, s. 39(6).21. [2009] EWCA......
-
Civil Restraint Orders in Other Courts and Tribunals
...in this court, the protection of such an order may extend to any court including an employment tribunal: see Peach Grey and Co v Summers [1995] ICR 549. Again, at [19] Lord Justice Peter Gibson said, ‘Although this application is made for the first time in this court, it is not in dispute t......
-
Table of Cases
...(QB) 55, 88–9 P (A Minor) (Residence Order: Child’s Welfare), Re [1999] EWCA Civ 1323, [2000] Fam 15 156, 160 Peach Grey & Co v Sommers [1995] ICR 549 24–5, 144 Perotti v Collyer-Bristow (A Firm) [2004] EWCA Civ 639 11 R (C) v London Borough of Havering Children Services and Others [2009] E......
-
Section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981
...of court case in Peach Grey & Co v Sommers 21 when it decided 20 Attorney General v BBC [1981] AC 303. 21 Peach Grey & Co v Sommers [1995] ICR 549. that an employment tribunal was an inferior court because it exercised the judicial power of the state. 2.34 In the context of section 42 of th......