Thursfield v Thursfield (Rev 1)

A substantial breach of the disclosure provisions ancillary to a freezing order is serious contempt and will normally justify imprisonment. Continuing non-disclosure may warrant a long sentence, potentially the statutory maximum, both to punish the contemnor and to induce compliance.

The sentencing court may identify separate punitive and coercive portions. Persistent breach, inadequate attempts at compliance and deliberate absence from a required committal hearing may aggravate the contempt. Sentence comparisons with factually different committal cases are generally unhelpful because the appropriate penalty depends on the circumstances of the individual contempt.

The claimant obtained a substantial judgment against her former husband in Michigan and began English proceedings to enforce it. The High Court continued a freezing order and ordered the defendant to disclose information about his assets and the funding of his legal expenses. His appeal against that order was struck out after he failed to provide security for costs, and the disclosure obligations remained unstayed.

HHJ Purle QC found deliberate and continuing breaches of the disclosure order. The defendant also failed to attend the committal hearing as ordered. The judge imposed the statutory maximum sentence of 24 months, identifying 12 months as punitive and 12 months as coercive.

The defendant did not challenge the findings of breach and contempt. He appealed against the refusal of an adjournment pending his Michigan appeal and contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

1. Appeal dismissed. The refusal to adjourn was plainly justified. The application was late, the Michigan appeal remained unresolved, and an undisputed liability would remain even if that appeal succeeded. The disclosure order therefore retained practical value.

2. Guidance in JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko [2011] EWCA Civ 1241 was directly applicable. A substantial breach of the disclosure provisions of a freezing order is serious and normally merits imprisonment. Continuing failure to disclose can justify a long sentence, potentially the maximum of two years, to encourage future co-operation.

3. The judge was entitled to impose 24 months. The breaches were deliberate, persistent and continuing. The defendant's belated attempts at compliance were manifestly inadequate, and he had taken no effective opportunity to remedy the contempt before or after sentence. His failure to attend the committal hearing in defiance of an express order was properly treated as aggravating.

4. The division of the sentence into 12 punitive months and 12 coercive months was legitimate. It preserved a substantial punishment while providing an inducement to comply. Although another judge might have imposed a shorter or differently formulated sentence, there was neither an error of principle nor manifest excess.

5. Comparisons with factually different committal decisions were unhelpful. Each committal sentence depends on its own circumstances, save possibly where closely connected contemnors are punished inconsistently for effectively the same contempt.

6. Jackson LJ and Beatson LJ agreed with Lloyd LJ. They additionally considered it repugnant to the administration of justice that a contemnor could evade the committal hearing and sentence while pursuing an appeal from abroad. They suggested, obiter, that law reformers examine whether permission to appeal should be required, at least where the contemnor has refused to submit to the court's jurisdiction.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The defendant's appeal against the committal order was dismissed. The court upheld the refusal of an adjournment and the sentence of 24 months.

2. High Court, Chancery Division: On 9 November 2012, HHJ Purle QC found continuing breaches of a disclosure order ancillary to a freezing order and committed the defendant to prison for 24 months, comprising 12 punitive months and 12 coercive months.

3. Earlier appellate proceedings: Permission had been granted to appeal against the disclosure order, but a stay was refused. The appeal was subsequently struck out when the defendant failed to provide security for costs.