Spotlight
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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
CB v EB [2020] EWFC 72
(Family Court, Mostyn J, 16 November 2020)Financial Remedies – Consent order – Application for set aside – Property values left husband with lower sums than anticipated – FPR...
No right (as yet) to be married legally in a humanist ceremony: R (on the application of Harrison and others) v Secretary of State for Justice [2020] EWHC 2096 (Admin)
Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor in Family Law, University of BuckinghamIn July 2020, six humanist couples brought an application for judicial review on the...
Controlling and coercive behaviour is gender and colour blind but how are courts meeting the challenge to protect victims
Maryam Syed, 7BRExamining the most recent caselaw in both family and criminal law jurisdictions this article discusses the prominent and still newly emerging issue of controlling and coercive domestic...
Roma families face disadvantage in child protection proceedings
Mary Marvel, Law for LifeWe have all become familiar with the discussion about structural racism in the UK, thanks to the excellent work of the Black Lives Matter movement. But it is less recognised...
The ‘Bank of Mum and Dad’ – obligations and scope for change
Helen Brander, Pump Court ChambersQuite unusually, two judgments of the High Court in 2020 have considered financial provision for adult children and when and how applications can be made. They come...
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