Prest v Prest

A judgment summons concerning maintenance arrears may proceed only where the statutory requirements for committal are satisfied. An application to adjourn on grounds of ill-health requires sufficiently specific evidence demonstrating that the debtor cannot attend. A vague medical report that does not identify the condition, diagnosis, treatment or resulting inability to attend will not justify an adjournment. The court may also take account of the procedural history, including repeated earlier adjournments and the debtor’s ability to undertake other activities.

The wife applied under section 5 of the Debtors Act 1869 for the husband’s committal for failure to pay maintenance ordered in 2011. The judgment summons had been repeatedly adjourned. The husband, who was abroad on holiday with the children, sought a further adjournment on the basis of medical reports stating that he was suffering from stress-related health problems and was unfit to attend a two-day hearing. The central issue was whether the evidence justified proceeding with the judgment summons being postponed.

1. The husband’s application for a further adjournment was refused. The medical evidence did not justify postponing the hearing.

2. Under Debtors Act 1869, section 5, committal for default in payment of a maintenance debt requires proof that the debtor has or has had, since the relevant order, the means to pay and has refused or neglected to do so. Committal may be for up to six weeks or until payment.

3. Rule 33.14 of the Family Proceedings Rules 2010 reflects those requirements. Rule 33.14(2) also provides that the debtor cannot be compelled to give evidence.

4. The reports relied upon were extremely vague. They did not identify the husband’s clinical condition, diagnosis, the advice given by the specialists, the nature of the proposed treatment, or why he was unable to attend court on the hearing dates. The later note merely stated that he was unfit to attend because of continuing medical and stress-related problems and did not cure those deficiencies.

5. The court was entitled to consider the history of repeated adjournments. The husband’s absence from the jurisdiction and his ability to spend more than three weeks on holiday in the United States also provided relevant context. The application was therefore dismissed.

This was a first-instance decision on an application to adjourn a judgment summons. The judgment records that earlier matrimonial proceedings had culminated in a Supreme Court judgment, but no appellate history for the present decision is stated.