H v Dent & Ors

Committal proceedings must identify separately and numerically each alleged contempt, with sufficient detail to enable the respondent to understand and meet the case. Defects in the application notice cannot ordinarily be cured by affidavits or later submissions. A procedural irregularity may be waived only where no injustice has resulted. Enforcement also requires a clear, precise and unambiguous order directly addressed to the alleged contemnor and, where required, a penal notice. Permission for privately initiated contempt proceedings requires a strong evidential case and consideration of the public interest, proportionality and court resources. Proceedings lacking proper particulars, evidential foundation or a legitimate contempt basis may be refused permission and struck out as an abuse of process.

H, a father involved in continuing child-arrangements proceedings, issued committal applications against a Cafcass manager, a Cafcass officer and the solicitor for the child’s mother. He alleged breaches of earlier directions, misleading the court, interference with the administration of justice and improper pressure leading to a consent order.

The applications concerned proceedings under Part 37 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010. The court had to determine whether the applications complied with the procedural requirements, whether permission should be granted for the Chapter 4 allegations, and whether the proceedings should be struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds or constituting an abuse of process.

1. Disposition. H withdrew the application against the first defendant, and permission to withdraw was granted subject to costs. The applications against the second and third defendants were refused permission insofar as they alleged interference with the due administration of justice and were struck out. The court found that none of the defendants had breached a court order or interfered with the administration of justice.
2. Particularity. Under Part 37 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, the application notice must set out in full the grounds relied upon and identify separately and numerically each alleged act of contempt, including its date where known. Because contempt carries the criminal standard of proof and potentially imprisonment, the notice performs the function of an indictment. The application itself must contain the necessary particulars; general allegations in affidavits, skeleton arguments or later submissions cannot cure the defect. The notices here gave no sufficiently specific case to meet and the defects caused potential injustice.
3. Enforceability of orders. A committal application requires a clear, precise and unambiguous order directed to the person alleged to be bound. The November 2013 and February 2014 orders were not specifically addressed to the defendants and lacked penal notices warning of the consequences of disobedience. Those defects were fundamental and could not fairly be waived. On the facts, the orders had in any event been complied with: the reports were filed, the relevant hearings were effective, and the Cafcass officer attended as directed.
4. Permission for contempt proceedings. Applying KJM Superbikes Ltd v Hinton [2008] EWCA Civ 1280, permission for privately initiated contempt proceedings requires consideration of the strength of the evidence that the statement was false and knowingly so, its circumstances and significance, the alleged contemnor’s state of mind, the gravity of the conduct and the resources required. The court must guard against weak or vindictive proceedings used to harass a person with whom the applicant has a grievance. H’s allegations were general, unsupported and materially delayed. They did not cross the permission threshold.
5. Abuse of process. Applying Wyatt v Vince [2015] UKSC 14, the court struck out the applications under FPR r 4.4 because they disclosed no reasonable grounds, constituted an abuse of process and failed to comply with the procedural rules. The overriding objective required a proportionate allocation of judicial resources. No civil restraint order was made because the underlying child-arrangements proceedings remained ongoing.