Hart v Hart

Sentencing for contempt must reflect both punishment for past breaches and, where the breach continues, coercion to secure compliance and enable reparation. The court should assess the seriousness of the contempt by reference to matters including prejudice, pressure, deliberateness, persistence, culpability, harm, responsibility, co-operation and remorse. Aggravating factors must be balanced against mitigation, including good character, age, health and the likely effect of imprisonment. Where contempt in financial proceedings is deliberate, sustained, damaging and committed despite repeated warnings, imprisonment may be justified. A financial penalty or suspended sentence may be inadequate where the contemnor has repeatedly failed to remedy the breaches.

Following divorce proceedings, the court had ordered the transfer of company shares and required John Hart to provide information and documentation enabling Karen Hart to manage the company. The order and later enforcement orders contained penal notices.

Mr Hart failed to comply. He withheld company records and other material, causing substantial difficulty and expense in the company’s management. On 23 February 2018 the court found him in contempt. The present hearing concerned sentence. Proceedings concerning Susan Byrne and Halesowen Estates Limited were adjourned and did not prevent sentencing Mr Hart.

The central issues were the seriousness of the contempt, the proper balance between punitive and coercive elements, and whether imprisonment, a financial penalty or a suspended sentence was appropriate.

1. The court sentenced Mr Hart to 14 months’ imprisonment for three breaches: the undertaking, the order of 24 February 2016 and the order of 29 July 2016. The punitive terms ran concurrently. Additional coercive terms applied to the undertaking and the February 2016 order. The sentence therefore comprised nine months’ punitive imprisonment and five months’ additional coercive imprisonment.

2. Applying the factors identified in Crystal Mews Ltd v Metterick and Others [2005] EWHC 3087 (Ch), the court found serious prejudice, deliberate and sustained breaches, high culpability, significant financial and emotional harm, personal responsibility, lack of co-operation and absence of remorse. The breaches were motivated by resentment about the financial outcome of the divorce and an intention to obstruct the efficient running of the company.

3. The aggravating factors substantially outweighed the mitigation. The court took account of Mr Hart’s good character, age, health, contribution to society, financial loss, family circumstances and the marked effect imprisonment would have on him. It also gave limited weight to documents produced shortly before sentence, because they did not remedy the wider and continuing breaches.

4. Only imprisonment was justified. A financial penalty was wholly inadequate, and suspension would have been unjustified after repeated warnings and extensive opportunities to comply. The sentence had both a punitive purpose for past breaches and a coercive purpose directed to obtaining the outstanding information. No coercive element was imposed for the July 2016 order because no relevant continuing breach was alleged.

5. Mr Hart was to serve one half of the sentence under section 258(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. He remained entitled to apply to purge his contempt.

Not stated in the judgment.