Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
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