is engaged in or suspected of being engaged in any other cover up, of corruption or criminality of any kind, particularly, but not limited to the purchase or sale of land at Butchers Stile playing fields, Davenham”. A 4. There then followed a heading, “Exceptions and limitations”, and clause 9 of the order provided: “Nothing in paragraph 8 above shall prevent the defendant from: B (a) contacting John Richardson of the first claimant at Cheshire West and Chester Council legal services HQ building, 58 Nicholas Street, Chester, CH1 2NP, 03001238123, or any individual nominated by John Richardson, in relation to this order and/or outstanding litigation between the claimants and the defendant including but not limited to the claimants’ adjourned contempt application; (b) contacting his own councillor and appropriate individuals within the first claimant in relation to Council services which he is entitled by law to use and/or take advantage of; (c) disclosing any information to any legal advisors instructed for the purpose of obtaining legal advice in relation to this matter and/or outstanding litigation between the claimants and the defendant including the claimants’ adjourned contempt application. (d) making any complaint to the police, provided that the defendant informs the police of this court order when he does so and provides a copy to them”. C D E Under the interpretation clause 10 of the order, 10(a) provided: “Council services means the services a Council tax payer is entitled to receive from a local authority, including but not limited to housing services, refuse collection and library services”. F 5. Having made that order, the application to commit the defendant for contempt was adjourned to 17th December 2015. On that date, Mr Justice Holroyde duly heard the application and found the allegations proved. In the final paragraph of the note of his judgment, Mr Justice Holroyde stated: G “I therefore conclude that on the eight occasions I have identified, Mr Pickthall has deliberately breached the order made against him. He has shown himself in his submissions to me today and in November to be not only intelligent but also in many respects an engaging man. He has also however shown that he simply refuses to recognise that the order of the court is binding on him. In my judgment, on the eight occasions, he breached the order”. H That, I repeat, was a reference to the order in similar terms which had been made by Mr Justice Edis in July 2015. Apple Transcription Limited 0845 604 5642 2 1-956-2143-16/kc