Watson v Sadiq

Under CPR Part 71, the power to require attendance at an oral examination is confined to the judgment debtor. A person against whom no judgment has been obtained cannot be joined for examination under rule 71.2.

Where a judgment debtor fails to attend, refuses to answer proper questions or otherwise breaches an order, the Part 71 procedure applies. Any committal order under rule 71.8(2) must be suspended in accordance with rule 71.8(4), subject to compliance with specified conditions. A debtor who leaves an examination knowing that this will frustrate it may have committed contempt, but the court may provide a further opportunity to comply before deciding whether committal is necessary.

The claimant had compromised earlier proceedings against the defendants concerning a property transaction. The defendants obtained various costs orders and sought information about the claimant’s means under CPR rule 71.2.

At an oral examination, the claimant left after the judge directed his son to leave. The Deputy District Judge joined the son and Kay Fraser to the examination proceedings, transferred the matter to the High Court and directed the claimant to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt. The High Court considered the jurisdiction to examine Ms Fraser, the consequences of the claimant’s departure, and an allegation that he had given a false address.

1. Ms Fraser’s position. The power under CPR rule 71.2 is limited to requiring a judgment debtor to attend court. Ms Fraser was not a judgment debtor. The Deputy District Judge therefore had no power to order her oral examination. The order was varied by striking out the provisions concerning her and the other joined individual. The defendants were ordered to pay Ms Fraser’s reasonable and proportionate costs, summarily assessed at £2,189.86.
2. Part 71 procedure. CPR Part 71 provides a comprehensive scheme for obtaining information from a judgment debtor. It includes written answers and disclosure followed, where appropriate, by oral examination. Failure to attend, refusal to take the oath or answer proper questions, or other non-compliance requires referral under rule 71.8. If committal is ordered, rule 71.8(4) mandates suspension subject to attendance and compliance with the relevant orders.
3. Contempt. A judgment debtor who leaves an oral examination part-way through may, in principle, commit contempt in the face of the court. The claimant left knowing that his departure would frustrate the examination. However, the specific mechanism in rule 71.8 applied. The court did not make a final finding on the alleged contempt or the alleged misleading address.
4. Further examination. The claimant had indicated that he would cooperate fully. He was therefore to be given a further opportunity to answer and test the written questions and provide the required documents. The matter was transferred back to Watford County Court for a fresh rule 71.2 notice and a further half-day oral examination. Any later non-compliance could be considered under the Part 71 committal procedure.

The judgment records that the underlying proceedings were compromised by consent in the County Court. The claimant’s subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 16 July 2013, and permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused on 4 February 2014. The present proceedings concerned later enforcement and contempt issues. The High Court varied the County Court order and transferred the matter back to Watford County Court.