Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles
Authors

CONTEMPT: Button v Salama [2013] EWHC 2972 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 18:48 PM
Slug : contempt-button-v-salama-2013-ewhc-2972-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Oct 15, 2013, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 103799

(Family Division, Holman J, 27 September 2013)

Following a family holiday the Egyptian father placed the now 6-year-old child in the care of the paternal family in Egypt where she had since remained. The English mother brought proceedings to secure her return but the father remained in custody due to his failure to comply with various court orders. He had so far served 21 months but the mother submitted there had been no attempt to provide her with information regarding the child or to secure her return.

As Roderic Wood J had found in the July hearing, Holman J also found the father to be dishonest, evasive and to have bitter feelings about the mother. There was no doubt that the father knew more about the child's whereabouts than he was willing to reveal. The judge was satisfied to the criminal standard that the father remained in breach of the orders.

The authority of Re W (Abduction: Committal) [2011] EWCA Civ 1196, [2012] 2 FLR 133 made it clear that it was legally permissible for the court to make successive mandatory injunctions and that a failure to comply would result in fresh contempt proceedings with the possibility of a further term of imprisonment.

It was an aggravating feature of the case that despite now already serving 21 months' actual imprisonment, and despite the court repeatedly ordering the husband to disclose information and cause the return of the child, he stubbornly and contumaciously refused to do so. However, at some point the time would come when further punishment would be excessive but that time had not yet come.

The judge imposed concurrent 6-month sentences in respect of three breaches of the orders. 

 

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