High Court judge criticises council over handling of contempt proceedings in dispute over riverboats

The London Borough of Richmond has lost a case over mooring on the River Thames in which a judge had earlier “excoriated” another judge’s order.

Mr Justice Kerr heard that Alistair Trotman used to operate riverboats and Richmond brought contempt proceedings, alleging breaches of an injunction granted by Lambert J in July 2023.

The council said Mr Trotman breached the injunction in the summer of 2023 by attaching his boat to the river bed at or near Richmond's land.

Lambert J's interim order was founded on trespass to Richmond's river bank and included a power of arrest.

Mr Trotman was twice arrested, and twice bailed by Choudhury J, pursuant to the power of arrest. Lambert J's order was later replaced by one founded on nuisance rather than trespass issued by HHJ Blair in February 2024.

HHJ Blair found Mr Trotman had not trespassed but was committing an actionable nuisance by obstructing the bank from a position a little offshore, with the boat anchored to the river bed using scaffolding poles. He awarded costs of £27,500 against Mr Trotman, who was then an undischarged bankrupt.

Kerr J said Richmond has only reluctantly accepted that it was bound by HHJ Blair's relevant findings and decisions, under the doctrine of issue estoppel. Richmond has not recovered any of its costs under HHJ Blair KC's order.

Richmond said Mr Trotman was guilty of contempt by breaching the order of Lambert J and since he had little money should receive a prison sentence of a month or two suspended for two years.

Mr Trotman, representing himself, said he did not breach Lambert J's order and that Richmond has wrongfully interfered with his right to proceed up and down the Thames by boat as he pleases.

He told the court he had not moored his boat on Richmond's land; that Richmond does not own the river bed - which is owned by the Crown through the Environment Agency - and that anchoring a little offshore by driving scaffolding poles into the river bed was not a breach of the injunction.

Kerr J unusually noted that exchanges between Mr Trotman and Richmond’s barrister “both became heated at times. I sought to lower the temperature as best I could and for the most part the necessary courtesies were observed, just about”.

He added: “Mr Trotman believes his rights are being infringed by serial court proceedings against him; while Richmond's officers believe he has contempt for the law and for court orders; and for the rights of Richmond's inhabitants to peaceful enjoyment of the river bank.”

After a series of conflicts that included Mr Trotman’s arrest, in January 2024 HHJ Blair handed down his reserved judgment [2024] EWHC 9 (KB) in which, Kerr J noted he had called Lambert J’s interim order "verbose, poorly expressed and ungrammatical in a number of its paragraphs”.

Ten sample allegations were put before Kerr J who said that apart from a short-lived trespass relating to the first two allegations none of the rest were proven.

He concluded: “In summary, the only breach proved is minor. It would not have persuaded HHJ Blair KC to have granted a final injunction.”

Kerr J went on to discuss the case more widely. He said: “I have a number of serious concerns about the way in which these contempt proceedings have been pursued.

“A statesmanlike and wise decision would have been to abandon them after HHJ Blair KC's judgment and order. He made binding findings greatly reducing the sting of any contempt.

“His order replaced Lambert J's with one that is a model of clarity. He excoriated the drafting of Lambert J's order, with good reason. He cast serious doubt on the power of arrest. Continuation of the contempt proceedings after these setbacks was ill-judged.”

Kerr J said Richmond's pursuit of Mr Trotman had been zealous “to the point of being heavy handed, even extending to the loud and harsh tone in which Mr Trotman was, at times, cross-examined, with discursive and aggressive questioning”.

He added: “Richmond’s misplaced zeal in its pursuit of him was in inverse proportion to the dwindling merits of its case against him in contempt. It has been neglectful of its duties to its unrepresented opponent and to the court to inform both of points that could assist the other side."

He ordered that HHJ Blair’s order will continue in force until midnight on 29 July 2028, and said Mr Trotman may well be entitled to his costs of the application.

Mark Smulian