Young v Young

In proceedings for contempt arising from non-compliance with financial disclosure orders, the applicant bears the burden of proving each breach to the criminal standard. A respondent who provides documents late will not necessarily be committed if the disclosure has fully remedied the default before sentence. Partial or inadequate answers may nevertheless constitute continuing contempt where the respondent deliberately fails to provide material information and supporting documents. Ill-health and alleged harassment do not excuse non-compliance unless they establish a legitimate reason connected with the order. Where repeated opportunities to comply have been ignored and the contempt is serious and deliberate, an immediate custodial sentence may be imposed.

The wife made two applications concerning the husband’s alleged contempt: one to commit him for breach of an order dated 12 November 2012 and another to activate a suspended committal order made in 2009. The court dealt with the later committal application alone, leaving the earlier breach relevant to sentence.

The order required the husband to provide financial disclosure, full answers concerning the sources of his funding, a witness statement responding to evidence, and specified tax returns. He provided some material shortly before the hearing. The central issues were whether that material purged the alleged contempt, whether the remaining failures were deliberate, and what sentence was appropriate.

1. Proof of contempt. The wife bore the burden of proof. The criminal standard applied, so the court had to be sure of each relevant breach.
2. Effect of late compliance. The husband was plainly in breach when the deadline expired. However, if his late answers had entirely remedied the deficiencies, committal for lateness alone would not have been appropriate. His tax returns and response to the witness statement sufficiently complied with the relevant parts of the order, and those parts of the application were dismissed.
3. Continuing non-compliance. The husband failed to provide documentary evidence supporting substantial alleged gifts and other funding. The court rejected his explanation that he lacked documents held by third parties. It found beyond reasonable doubt that he had deliberately failed to comply with the funding-disclosure requirement. He also failed wholesale to produce documents verifying alleged financial losses, including evidence relating to the destination and beneficial ownership of a £2.4 million payment. He remained in contempt of the disclosure requirement.
4. Defences and mitigation. The court accepted that the husband had been unwell but rejected ill-health as an excuse for contempt. Alleged harassment by private investigators was not a legitimate defence to failure to comply with the order. The court also rejected further adjournments for compliance or legal representation, given the repeated opportunities already provided.
5. Sentence. The contempts were serious and a fine or further suspended sentence was inappropriate. The court imposed six months’ imprisonment, with one half to be served in custody. It did not activate the earlier suspended committal, avoiding double jeopardy. The husband remained entitled to apply to purge his contempt by finally complying with the disclosure orders.