Aerospace Tolling Ltd v Aerospace Technical Ltd

[2012] EWHC 1086 (QB)

Case details

Case citations
[2012] EWHC 1086 (QB)
Court
High Court (Queen's Bench Division)
Judgment date
28 November 2012
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Civil procedure Contempt of court Bankruptcy and enforcement of fines
Keywords
contempt of court committal order suspended sentence of imprisonment court fine bankruptcy enforcement adjournment warrant for arrest
Outcome
application granted (suspended committal enforced; warrant issued)
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

A court fine imposed for contempt is not provable in the contemnor’s bankruptcy and is unaffected by it. Where imprisonment has been suspended on condition that the fine is paid by a specified date, failure to pay ordinarily permits the court to bring the suspended sentence into effect. An adjournment to obtain representation will be refused where the contemnor has had ample opportunity to prepare and no evidential basis for postponement is provided.

Factual background

The claimant applied to enforce an order made on 20 September 2012 committing the second defendant, Mr Paulin, to prison for 28 days for contempt, with execution suspended on condition that he pay a £10,000 fine by 18 October 2012. The underlying contempt consisted of breaches of three court orders.

The fine remained unpaid. Mr Paulin was absent, and an acquaintance sought an adjournment to enable him to obtain representation, relying also on his bankruptcy and personal circumstances. The issue was whether the suspended committal should be enforced.

Held

  1. The suspended sentence was brought into effect. The court was satisfied that the breaches had previously been assessed as serious enough to justify imprisonment and that the £10,000 fine had not been paid.
  2. A court fine is not provable in bankruptcy and is unaffected by the contemnor’s bankruptcy. Bankruptcy therefore did not prevent enforcement of the suspended sentence.
  3. The relationship breakdown relied upon occurred after the payment deadline and did not explain the earlier failure to comply. The relevant circumstances had also been known when the original order was made.
  4. The application was not adjourned. The contemnor had known of the proceedings and had ample time to obtain representation. There was no evidence from him and no sufficient reason to delay enforcement.
  5. Mr Paulin was committed to prison for 28 days from the date on which he was brought into custody. He was to remain in custody for half that period, namely 14 days, and a warrant was issued for his arrest.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.