Rogan v Rogan

On a judgment summons for maintenance arrears, the court retains an independent discretion whether to commit a contemnor to prison. An agreement by the respondent to make further payments does not require the court to make a suspended committal order. The court may instead adjourn the committal application to allow compliance with agreed payment and disclosure obligations, particularly where there is evidence of a potentially substantial change in the respondent’s financial circumstances. The respondent’s continuing compliance, including payment of current maintenance, school fees, arrears and costs, remains critical. Previous indulgence does not remove the seriousness of established contempt, and the court may warn that imprisonment is likely if further obligations are not fulfilled.

This was a restored judgment summons brought by Sarah Annabel Rogan seeking the committal of her former husband, Richard Grant Rogan, for substantial maintenance arrears. At an earlier hearing, reported as [2018] EWHC 2512 (Fam), the respondent agreed to pay current maintenance and arrears, but he failed to pay the agreed arrears of £140,933 by 31 January 2019.

By the restored hearing, he had continued paying some periodical payments but remained in arrears concerning school fees and the agreed capital sum. He proposed further payments under a new contract and agreed to specified payment and disclosure obligations. The central issue was whether the court should make a suspended order for committal or adjourn the committal application.

1. The respondent had already been found to be in contempt of court for failing to comply with maintenance obligations. The maximum committal period under the Debtors Act was six weeks, subject to the statutory remission referred to by the judge.
2. The proposed suspended committal order remained a matter for the court’s own judgment and discretion. The respondent’s agreement to its terms did not oblige the court to make the order.
3. The court declined to make a suspended committal order immediately. The respondent relied on a newly signed contract under which his company was to receive £25,000 per month for at least one year. He also anticipated a further contract enabling payment of the outstanding capital sum by 31 October 2019. Those matters provided a basis for allowing a further opportunity for compliance, although the judge noted that similar earlier assurances had not been fulfilled.
4. The committal application was further adjourned to a date towards the end of 2019. The adjournment was conditional on continued prompt payment of spousal and child maintenance, payment of school fees, honouring post-dated cheques, payment of £140,933 by 31 October 2019, payment of assessed costs of £12,810 by 18 May 2019, and service of specified contractual documents.
5. The judge emphasised the gravity of the established contempt and warned that further indulgence might not be granted. The respondent was left in no doubt that imprisonment remained a real and imminent consequence of non-compliance.

The judgment describes a previous hearing in the same proceedings, reported as [2018] EWHC 2512 (Fam). It does not state an appellate history.