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
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
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