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
Re R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
Welsh Government launches consultation on amendments to adoption regulations
The Welsh Government has launched a consultation on the proposed amendments to the Adoption Agencies (Wales) Regulations 2005 and the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (Wales) Regulations 2015....
View all articles
Authors

FINANCIAL REMEDIES/ CONTEMPT: ZUK v ZUK

Sep 29, 2018, 18:34 PM
Slug : financial-remedies-contempt-zuk-v-zuk
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Dec 5, 2012, 02:30 AM
Article ID : 101109

(Court of Appeal, Thorpe, Patten LJJ, David Richards J, 29 November 2012)

A lump sum order for £10,000 was made against the husband in financial remedy proceedings. Evidence before the judge showed that the husband had access to assets of £37,000. The husband made it clear that he did not intend to comply with the order and a penal notice was attached requiring payment within 2 months. The order was not in fact served on the husband until 4 months after the expiration of the notice. The wife issued committal proceedings.

The husband was present at the hearing but was not represented. He was sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment. The husband applied to purge his contempt but at the hearing he made no specific proposal to do so and the application was refused. The husband appealed.

The appeal was allowed. Section 5 of the Debtors Act 1869, which was almost identically replicated in r 33.14(c)(i) of the FPR 2010, placed a limit of a maximum prison term of 6 weeks. Section 11 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 permitted that jurisdiction to be exercisable only by a county court in respect of a county court maintenance order as was the case here. The judge had wrongly believed she had jurisdiction to pass down a sentence of 9 months by virtue of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 but given the deprivation of the husband's liberty that was a costly mistake.

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