Birmingham City Council v Unite the Union: £265,000 Fine for Contempt and Scrutiny of Costs on Account [2026] EWHC 633 (KB)

Detailed Assessment — 2026-03-17

Jefford J fines Unite £265,000 for contempt and scrutinises BCC statement of costs, ordering £170,000 interim payment after identifying errors including inappropriate counsel refreshers.

Overview

Date: 17 March 2026

Judge: Mrs Justice Jefford DBE

Court: King's Bench Division

Nature of Proceedings: Contempt of court — penalty for breach of prohibitory injunction; costs of committal application

Key Issues:

Level of fine for trade union's deliberate breach of injunction during waste collection strike
Costs of contempt proceedings — interim payment on account
Scrutiny of claimant's statement of costs (~£277,000 ex-VAT) for errors and excessive charging
Inappropriate inclusion of counsel refresher fees

---

The Facts

Birmingham City Council ("BCC") obtained an interim injunction from Mrs Justice Dias on 23 May 2025 against Unite the Union in connection with a protracted waste collection strike. The injunction restricted picketing to six designated pickets at depot entrances and confined all other protest activity to defined Assembly Areas near the depots. Unite was required to take all reasonable steps to ensure its members complied.

The strike had its origins in BCC's 2024 decision to remove the Grade 3 Waste Recycling Collection Officer role. After a ballot in November 2024 (95% in favour), discontinuous strike action began in January 2025. By March 2025, uncollected waste in Birmingham reached 22,000 tonnes, triggering a Major Incident declaration under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.

Despite the injunction, BCC alleged that within days of its grant, Unite members began obstructing waste collection vehicles — initially at depot entrances and, from 8 July 2025, by slow walking in streets near the depots. The committal application, made on 24 July 2025, relied on nearly 30 distinct incidents between 8 and 21 July 2025. Unite admitted breach but argued that protests away from the depots were outside the scope of the injunction — a position their own leading counsel subsequently assessed as having "zero" prospect of success.

---

The Penalty: £265,000

Mrs Justice Jefford rejected Unite's contention that the breaches were the product of a genuine misunderstanding about the injunction's scope. She found culpability to be high, stating:

> "I am sure that there was at best a genuine belief that Unite had a clever argument as to the scope of the injunction but not a genuine belief that the injunction permitted protesting away from the depots which nonetheless obstructed the progress of the wagons."

The judge considered the only comparable authority — Secretary of State for Justice v Prison Officers Association [2019] EWHC 3553 (QB) — where fines of £95,000 and £115,000 were imposed on the much smaller POA (balance sheet assets of £4 million). Unite, by contrast, had annual income of £219 million and membership of approximately 1.2 million.

Drawing the threads together, the judge identified several aggravating and mitigating factors:

Aggravating:

Deliberate breaches, repeated after being drawn to Unite's attention
The purported belief in the scope of the injunction was not genuinely held
Delay in taking independent legal advice (over two weeks)
Admission of breach was not made at the first opportunity

Mitigating:

Genuine (if late) apology to the court
Steps taken to prevent further breaches from late July 2025
No further breaches after 31 July 2025
The primary cause of harm was the lawful strike itself, not the breaches

The fine of £265,000 was set to reflect the importance of upholding the authority of the court and the general deterrent effect, while having regard to totality across what was a two-week pattern of action.

---

Costs of the Contempt Application

The parties agreed that Unite should pay BCC's costs of the committal application, to be assessed if not agreed. The live dispute was whether there should be an interim payment on account and, if so, how much.

The Statement of Costs

BCC filed a statement of costs for summary assessment claiming approximately £277,000 exclusive of VAT. This was the only costs information before the court — there was no approved costs budget.

Mrs Justice Jefford was notably critical. Had she been conducting a summary assessment, she said she would have been raising issues "in a number of respects":

> "The overall amount appears high. There is a high level of work done on documents and particularly by Grade A and B fee earners. There are obvious errors in the inclusion of refreshers for counsel."

The reference to counsel refresher fees is significant. In committal proceedings heard on a single day (14 October 2025), the inclusion of refreshers in the statement of costs was plainly inappropriate — refreshers being daily fees for subsequent days of a multi-day hearing.

The Interim Payment

BCC sought: £200,000 payable within 14 days
Unite proposed: £150,000 payable within 28 days
Ordered: £170,000 payable within 14 days

The judge adopted a "broad brush approach" — the standard method for interim payments on account — but expressly tempered her assessment by reference to the deficiencies she had identified in the statement of costs.

The resulting figure of £170,000 represents approximately 61% of the claimed costs (ex-VAT). That is notably below the 80-90% range that paying parties sometimes face on interim payments, reflecting the judge's genuine concern that the claimed costs would not survive detailed assessment intact.

---

Key Takeaways

For Costs Lawyers

1. Statements of costs are scrutinised, even at the interim stage — The judge's identification of errors (counsel refreshers) and excessive charging (Grade A/B document work) directly influenced the quantum of the interim payment. A poorly prepared statement of costs undermines the receiving party's position.

2. Counsel refresher fees must be appropriate — Including refreshers in a one-day hearing is an obvious error that damages credibility. Practitioners preparing statements of costs should ensure that counsel's fees accurately reflect the hearing pattern.

3. The broad brush is not a rubber stamp — Even without a costs budget to benchmark against, the court will apply its own assessment of reasonableness. A claim of £277,000 for a one-day contempt hearing attracted visible judicial scepticism.

4. Interim payments reflect realistic recovery — The £170,000 ordered (61% of claimed costs) signals that the court expects significant reductions on assessment. Receiving parties should not treat interim payment applications as a way to recover the bulk of inflated costs claims.

For Litigation Practitioners

1. Contempt fines reflect the contemnor's means — Unite's size and income were expressly relevant. A £50,000 fine (as Unite proposed) would have "little impact" and "signal wrongly that the court regarded the breaches as of little significance."

2. The timing of admissions matters — Unite's admission of breach in September 2025, two months after the breaches began, attracted only limited credit. The criminal analogy applies: an early indication equivalent to a guilty plea at interview carries more weight than one at trial.

3. Self-serving interpretations of court orders are dangerous — Unite's attempt to read the injunction as permitting protests away from depots was characterised as a "clever argument" rather than a genuine belief. Parties should seek independent legal advice immediately when questions of interpretation arise, rather than adopting the interpretation that suits them.

4. Post-breach conduct is closely examined — The judge scrutinised the content and timing of Unite's guidance to members, the delay in taking counsel's advice, and the failure to issue corrective guidance promptly. These all affected the assessment of culpability.

---

Conclusion

Birmingham City Council v Unite the Union is primarily a contempt case, but the costs aspects are of real practical interest. The judgment demonstrates that the court will look critically at a statement of costs even at the interim payment stage, and that obvious errors — such as inappropriate counsel refreshers — will directly reduce recovery.

The £170,000 interim payment, set against a claimed £277,000, represents a significant discount driven by judicial concern about the quality and proportionality of the costs claim. For costs practitioners, it is a reminder that the statement of costs is not just a formality: it is the document on which the court bases its assessment, and errors or inflation will be penalised.

More broadly, the £265,000 fine — the largest contempt fine imposed on a trade union in recent years — underscores the court's insistence on compliance with its orders and the relevance of the contemnor's financial position to the level of sanction.

---

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

Full judgment available at: BAILII

Related Specialist Support

Costs Budgeting and Detailed Assessment: Precedent H, dispute documents, negotiations and assessment strategy.
Bills of Costs: Clear, defensible traditional and electronic bills prepared for recovery.
Costs Lawyer Support: Direct help with costs procedure, strategy, drafting and advocacy.