EWQ v Jansen (Aka GFD)

Where a party gives voluntary undertakings to the court as part of a final settlement, compliance is essential to the finality of the litigation. Breaches may warrant imprisonment both as punishment and to deter repetition, particularly where they are sustained, involve harassment or include a demand for money.

Where contempt is admitted, the court may sentence on the basis of the admissions if the applicant does not seek a contested hearing. A custodial sentence may be suspended where the contemnor acknowledges the wrongdoing, offers an apology, and has spared the applicant the burden and distress of proving the breaches at trial.

The defendant had voluntarily given undertakings to the court under an order dated 29 October 2012, following settlement of proceedings concerning non-disclosure and harassment. She admitted 16 specific breaches, together with a further breach consisting of a course of conduct amounting to harassment.

The claimant did not accept that the admissions were the whole truth, but did not seek a hearing to challenge them. The application therefore concerned the appropriate sentence for the admitted contempts, including whether any custodial sentence should be suspended.

1. Contempt admitted and sentence imposed. The court proceeded on the basis of the defendant’s written admissions. Although the claimant disputed that they were complete, he did not seek a hearing involving evidence and cross-examination. The admitted breaches included repeated contacts and communications, a solicitor’s contact with the claimant’s solicitors, a demand for money, and a course of conduct amounting to harassment ([2014] EWHC 894 (QB), paras 9–13).
2. Seriousness of breach. Final settlements must provide finality. Breaches of undertakings given as part of such a settlement are serious because they undermine that finality. The breaches were also aggravated by their number, their continuation over several months, the harassment, and the demand for money. The defendant had not admitted them at the earliest opportunity ([2014] EWHC 894 (QB), paras 5, 14–15).
3. Custodial sentence. The appropriate sentence was two months’ imprisonment. The sentence served both punitive and deterrent purposes. The court took account of the defendant’s personal mitigation, including her family circumstances and the emotional circumstances in which the breaches occurred ([2014] EWHC 894 (QB), para 16).
4. Suspension. The sentence was suspended for 18 months. The defendant had acknowledged the wrongfulness and harmfulness of her conduct, apologised, and spared the claimant the trouble and distress of proving the breaches at a full hearing. The court warned that any further breach of the undertakings, if admitted or proved, would make avoidance of immediate custody difficult ([2014] EWHC 894 (QB), paras 16–17).

The judgment refers to an earlier interim judgment in the same proceedings, delivered on 30 July 2012: [2012] EWHC 2182 (QB). That order ceased to have effect when the parties settled and the defendant gave the undertakings recorded in the order dated 29 October 2012.