header-logo header-logo

27 March 2026
Issue: 8155 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Law digests: 27 March 2026

Contempt

Birmingham City Council v Unite the Union [2026] EWHC 633 (KB)

The King’s Bench Division determined the appropriate penalty for Unite’s admitted breach of a prohibitory injunction granted on 23 May 2025 concerning picketing during a Birmingham rubbish collection strike. Birmingham City Council (BCC) sought a financial penalty for Unite’s contempt of court. The key issue was the appropriate sanction for breaches occurring between 8 and 21 July 2025, where Unite members obstructed waste collection vehicles on roads away from depot entrances, outside designated assembly areas. Unite admitted the breaches but argued they resulted from a genuine misunderstanding of the injunction’s scope, contending it only prohibited protesting at depot premises, not elsewhere. The court rejected this defence, finding the breaches deliberate with high culpability. The court held that Unite’s interpretation was not genuinely held but rather a spurious argument to circumvent the injunction’s clear terms. The injunction’s purpose was manifestly to prevent impediment to rubbish collection, which necessarily extended beyond merely allowing vehicles to exit depots. The court found Unite

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll