George Hayman KC and James Kinman acted for the successful respondents in this appeal against the activation of an 18-month suspended sentence for contempt. They had previously acted in the first instance committal proceedings, and in obtaining several of the injunctions of which the appellant had been found to be in breach.

The appellant initially contended that she was unaware of, or had not been properly served with, the contempt proceedings, but was obliged to abandon that contention in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. She relied instead on various purported technical defaults. She was unsuccessful in establishing any. In the course of its judgment, the Court of Appeal confirmed that: (a) the requirements of CPR 81.8 do not apply to applications to activate a suspended sentence; and (b) while it is sometimes good practice for a sentencing judge to distinguish between the coercive and punitive aspects of a sentence, it is not necessary for the judge to do so.

George and James were instructed by Jacob Ward of Macfarlanes LLP

Read the full judgment: Judgment handed down in Gill v Kaur [2026] EWCA Civ 833