Egeneonu v Egeneonu & Anor

Where permission is required before a contempt application may be made, the court cannot substantively determine the permission application until it has been served on the proposed respondent with the prescribed documents. The respondent must then be allowed the period specified by the Family Procedure Rules 2010 to acknowledge service and file evidence. A person who has been expressly ordered to attend court, understood that obligation and fails to attend without explanation may be subject to an arrest warrant. A formal declaration should ordinarily not be made without prior notice to the person or body whom it is intended to bind.

The proceedings concerned three children who had been taken to Nigeria and had not been returned to England. Earlier orders required the respondents to facilitate the children’s return and required Victor Egeneonu to attend the present hearing. The children were not produced, Victor did not attend, and the father appeared in custody.

The mother sought permission to make fresh applications to commit both respondents for alleged contempts of court. She also sought procedural directions and a formal indication that the respondents required urgent legal aid. The issues were whether an arrest warrant should issue for Victor, whether the contempt applications could be heard, and what further directions should be made.

1. Arrest warrant. Victor Egeneonu had been personally present when ordered to attend, had understood the requirement, and had not attended or provided any explanation. Although there were potential difficulties concerning service of the earlier order and the covering letter, the court found an apparent breach of the attendance requirement and issued a warrant directed to the Tipstaff. Victor was to be brought before the court in custody if arrested.
2. Permission for contempt applications. The alleged contempts included matters within rules 37.13 and 37.17 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, for which permission was required. Rule 37.15 required the permission application to be served on the proposed respondent with specified documents. The respondent then had 14 days to file and serve an acknowledgment of service and, if desired, evidence. Since the applications had not yet been served, the court could not substantively hear even the permission application.
3. Service and listing. The father, who was present in custody, could be served immediately after leaving the courtroom, in the presence of the Tipstaff, with a proper affidavit of service to follow. The permission applications were listed before Williams J on 21 March 2018, with arrangements for the father’s production.
4. Legal representation and declaration. The court directed that the order should record, in broad terms, the urgent need for skilled legal representation and legal aid for both respondents. It declined to make a formal declaration, holding that such a declaration should be made only exceptionally without prior notice to the person or body whom it was intended to bind.

The judgment records earlier hearings and orders in the same proceedings, most recently before Williams J on 9 February 2018. It does not describe an appeal.