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...
Latest articles
What is a Cohabitation Agreement, and do I need one?
Many couples, despite living together, never seek to legally formalise their living and financial arrangements.  They mistakenly believe that the concept of a ‘common law’ husband and...
Government publishes strategy to tackle child sexual abuse
The Home Secretary has published a new strategy to protect children from child sexual abuse.The strategy sets out the government’s vision for preventing, tackling and responding to child sexual...
A system that re-abuses victims is not a system fit for purpose
You don’t get four conjoined domestic abuse cases heard speedily by the President in the Court of Appeal - in the middle of a pandemic upending the family justice system - when just a few...
Nuffield Family Justice Observatory reports on private law applications​
The Nuffield Family Justice Observatory has published a report on private law cases in England and Wales. The report 'Uncovering private family law: Who’s coming to...
The Family Solutions Initiative – a response to a system in crisis
The Family Solutions Group (‘FSG’) report, entitled What about me?: Reframing Support for Families following Parental Separation leaves us in no doubt as to the problems which are...
View all articles

Prest v Prest [2015] EWCA Civ 714

Sep 29, 2018, 22:12 PM
Financial remedies – Breach of order – Application for judgment summons – Standard of proof – Whether the 4-week prison sentence was unacceptable
​The husband's appeal from a 4-week prison sentence for breach of a financial order was dismissed.
Slug : prest-v-prest-2015-ewca-civ-674
Meta Title : Prest v Prest [2015] EWCA Civ 714
Meta Keywords : Financial remedies – Breach of order – Application for judgment summons – Standard of proof – Whether the 4-week prison sentence was unacceptable
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jul 7, 2015, 08:44 AM
Article ID : 109769
(Court of Appeal,McFarlane, Gloster LJJ, Blake J, 7 July 2015)

[The judicially approved judgment and accompanying headnote has now published in Family Law Reports [2016] 1 FLR 773]

Financial remedies – Breach of order – Application forjudgment summons – Standard of proof – Whether the 4-week prison sentence wasunacceptable

The full judgment is attached below

The husband's appealfrom a 4-week prison sentence for breach of a financial order was dismissed.

When the husband andwife divorced after 15 years of marriage the wife was awarded a lump sum by wayof property transfer of £17.5m and pending discharge of the lump sum thehusband was to make periodical payments of 2% pa on the amount outstanding.

The wife allegednon-payment of arrears and was granted a judgment summons under s 5 of theDebtors Act 1869. A penalty of 4 weeks’ imprisonment was imposed but wassuspended providing that the husband paid the arrears within 3 months. Thehusband appealed.

Lord Justice McFarlaneadvised treating three key authorities referred to with caution: Zuk v Zuk [2012] EWCA Civ 1871; Bhura v Bhura [2012] EWHC 3633 (Fam);and Mohan v Mohan [2013] EWCA Civ 586.Those authorities suggested that in the criminal process of hearing a judgmentsummons it was sufficient to rely upon findings as to wealth made on the civilstandard of proof in the original proceedings and that those findings coupledwith proof of non-payment was sufficient to establish the burden on therespondent.

In such cases wherethe respondent might serve a term of imprisonment certain requirements had to besatisfied: (a) the fact that the respondent had, since the date of the order orjudgment, the means to pay the sum due must be proved to the criminal standardof proof; (b) the fact that the respondent had refused or neglected, to pay thesum due, must also be proved to the criminal standard; (c) the burden of proofwas at all times on the applicant; and (d) the respondent could not becompelled to give evidence.

The husband’s appeal was dismissed. The decision torefuse an adjournment to further investigate the husband’s ill health was acase management decision which had been approached properly and did not denyhim a fair trial. There was no risk that the judge would take improper accountof previous findings because he had conducted the fact-finding process of thehusband’s findings. In fact the judge did not take account of those findingsand did not apply the incorrect standard of proof. The judgment drew a cleardistinction between the previous findings and those made in the judgmentsummons proceedings. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the wife hadacquiesced or encouraged the husband to pay other outgoings rather than tofulfil his maintenance obligations to her. It had been unacceptable for thehusband to persistently fail to comply with the order. The 4-week prisonsentence was not unacceptable given the outstanding arrears amounted to £320,000.

Case No: B6/2014/2752

Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWCA Civ 714

Mr Justice Moylan

Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 07/07/2015



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :


- and -


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr James Turner QC and Mr Peter Mitchell (instructed by Collyer Bristow LLP) for the Appellant
Mr Jeremy Posnansky QC (of Farrer & Co) for the Respondent

Hearing date: 19th March 2015
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Prest v Prest 

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