HEREFORDSHIRE strawberry king John Davies last week avoided going to jail for contempt of court - but his company was hit by a £65,000 fine.

Herefordshire Council took action against Mr Davies and S&A Property Ltd for breaching an injunction banning further development at Brierley Court Farm, near Leominster.

Last year, Mr Justice Roderick Evans granted the High Court ban after S&A built an amenity building for strawberry pickers without planning permission. Under the injunction, the only work allowed to be done on the incomplete structure was for health and safety reasons.

In April and May this year, boards covering the spaces for windows in an amenity block were removed by S&A and replaced with glass. The company claimed rainwater was getting into the building and making it unsafe.

That reason was dismissed by the council, who took S&A back to the High Court arguing the company had breached the injunction.

Last Thursday, Mr Justice Stanley Burnton agreed there was no reason for the glass to be put in place, and ordered that the building be returned to its boarded up state.

He declined to jail Mr Davies for contempt - as the council had demanded - and instead imposed the £65,000 fine on the company, which had to be paid within 14 days.

He also ordered that the council's legal costs of £11,489 should be paid by S&A Properties.

If the financial penalties were not paid, the council could begin seizing the assets of Mr Davies and his firm.

The judge said he had taken into account the "large profits" made by the company in deciding the level of the fine.

Judge Burnton dismissed claims made by Mark Lowe QC, for S&A Property, that the injunction had been "too vague" to support the council's arguments. On reading the injunction, he said, it was clear there was a "considerable risk" that putting the windows in would not be allowed.

He added he had "no doubt" as to the enforceability of the injunction, and rejected claims that if water got inside the complex those using it may be in danger of slipping over.

The judge observed under the injunction there was no reason for the complex to be occupied at any stage.

Mr Lowe had argued that unless glass windows were allowed, the whole complex might have to be placed under a giant marquee to protect it.

The judge said if that were the case, then S&A would have to bear the costs of such a move.