Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
View all articles

COMMITTAL: Constantinides v Constantinides [2013] EWHC 3688 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 18:54 PM
Slug : committal-constantinides-v-constantinides-2013-ewhc-3688-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 4, 2013, 03:00 AM
Article ID : 104225

(Family Division, Holman J, 6 November 2013)

The husband failed to comply with a court order to pay the wife maintenance of £750pm and arrears now stood at £78,000. The wife had made several unsuccessful attempts to enforce the order. In the Magistrates' court the husband was committed to prison for 6 weeks for non-payment and he appealed.

In the High Court and county court enforcement of maintenance debts by imprisonment operated by way of judgment summons pursuant to s 5 of the Debtors Act 1869 which required the court to be satisfied that the debtor had the means to pay. FPR33 also required the creditor to prove that the debtor had or had since the date of the order the means to pay but had refused or neglected to pay. Neither provision applied to the magistrates' court or the Family Proceedings Courts. FPR 33 could be applied if the magistrate ordered the application to be treated as family proceedings but otherwise there was no rule applying to this type of application if, as here, the court did not treat the application as family proceedings.

The district judge dealt with the application pursuant to s 76 and s 93(6) of the Magistrates Court Act 1980 which required the court to be satisfied that the default in payment was due to wilful refusal or culpable neglect which was different from the wording of s 5 of the Debtors Act.

The judge found that Parliament could not have intended the criteria for the two provisions to be different and therefore the sections should be construed and applied in order to have the same result. A magistrates' court should proceed with regard to FPR 33. The phrase ‘means to pay' had the ordinary and natural meaning of income or assets of some kind. It did not include the potential earning capacity. The district judge had erred when he committed the husband to prison on the basis of his earning capacity which he was not using.

The appeal was allowed and the committal order set aside. 


Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from