Egeneonu v Egeneonu (Rev 1)

Contempt for breach of a court order requires proof of deliberate disobedience to an order that clearly states what must be done or avoided and carries a sufficiently clear warning of penal consequences. The applicant bears the burden of proving, to the criminal standard, both the breach and the alleged contemnor’s ability to comply. Ambiguity cannot be remedied by implying terms into the order. A wardship prohibition on taking significant steps concerning children does not, without clear wording and an appropriate warning, support committal. Where an order requires personal attendance, “must attend” ordinarily means attendance in person. Procedural defects may be waived where the court is satisfied that no injustice has been caused.

The applicant mother sought the committal of the respondent father for contempt arising from the retention of their three children in Nigeria while they remained wards of the English court. The application alleged breaches of wardship restrictions, injunctions, attendance orders and orders requiring information, contact arrangements and proposals for the children’s return.

Thirteen grounds were initially pleaded, but only eight remained live. The central factual issue was whether the father retained control of the children and could therefore comply with the orders requiring information, contact and return proposals.

1. Ground 2 dismissed. The court was satisfied that the father had taken significant steps concerning the children, including changes of residence and schooling, knowing the effect of wardship. However, the wardship prohibition in FPR 2010 PD12D para 1.3(b) lacked sufficient clarity as to what was prohibited and did not contain a clear warning of penal consequences. It therefore could not support committal. The court observed that future orders should specify what may or may not be done and include an appropriate warning or penal notice.
2. The contempt jurisdiction was criminal or quasi-criminal in nature. The mother had to prove, so that the court was sure, the relevant disobedience and that compliance was within the father’s power. The father’s control over the children was therefore central to Grounds 10–13.
3. Grounds 4(c), (e), (f), (g) and (h) were proved. The father had sent intimidating and threatening communications, attempted to gain entry to the mother’s home and attended her church in order to pressure her to abandon the proceedings.
4. Ground 8 was proved for the hearings on 9 March 2015, 19 May 2015 and 25 January 2016. The orders were clear, properly served and carried penal notices. “Must attend” required personal attendance. The alleged non-attendance on 19 June 2014 was not pursued because fairness required it to have been dealt with in the earlier committal proceedings.
5. For Grounds 10–13, the court found that the father retained control of the children, knew their whereabouts, could provide accurate information, could facilitate their return and could arrange contact. His failures to provide information and proposals were therefore deliberate breaches. Ground 9, concerning false statements of truth, was unnecessary to determine because it was effectively the obverse of the proven non-compliance.
6. The proven grounds were adjourned for sentencing. The sentence recorded was six months concurrent for Ground 4, three months consecutive for Ground 8, and twelve months on each of Grounds 10–13, concurrent.