Caroline Brady v Paul Jackson

A judgment-summons committal is not invalidated by a technical defect in initiating documents where subsequent case management identifies the summons and no substantive prejudice results. The travel-expense protection in the Family Procedure Rules 2010, rule 33.14A, applies to an adjourned hearing after failure to attend the original hearing, not the original judgment-summons hearing. A debtor cannot be compelled to give evidence, but documents voluntarily supplied in earlier enforcement proceedings may be considered later. Fairness depends on a proper opportunity to address the material; unsupported claims of ambush do not suffice. Further evidence may be refused where it was not relied on and could not affect the outcome.

Following repeated defaults under financial orders made for the support of the respondent and the parties’ children, the Central Family Court, sitting through HHJ Hughes QC, committed the appellant to prison for six weeks, suspended for 12 months on conditions requiring payment of current maintenance and arrears of £29,500.

The appellant appealed out of time. He challenged the validity of the judgment-summons documents, the application of the travel-expense requirement, reliance on bank statements supplied during earlier enforcement proceedings, and the fairness of the hearing. He also sought admission of later statements excluded below. The central issues were whether those procedural and evidential matters invalidated the committal order or made the hearing unfair.

The appeal was dismissed. The court extended time for bringing it, dismissed the application to admit the later statements, and ordered costs of £6,000.

1. Committal standard. The judge correctly directed herself that she had to be sure that the debtor had means to pay and was in wilful default. Her assessment of the bank statements, the absence of ordinary living expenses, the pattern of discretionary spending and the history of default supported the finding of wilful neglect.
2. Initiating documents. Any defect in the two judgment-summons documents did not invalidate the proceedings. Subsequent case management expressly identified the relevant summons and gave detailed directions. The difference between the stated and mathematically correct arrears figure caused no substantive prejudice.
3. Travel expenses. Rule 33.14A of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, referring to committal under section 110(2) of the County Courts Act 1984, applies only to an adjourned hearing where a debtor failed to attend the original hearing. It did not apply because the appellant attended the judgment-summons hearing. The point also had no practical merit because it was not taken then.
4. Bank statements. Under rule 33.14, and specifically subrule (4), a debtor may not be compelled to give evidence. That protection did not prevent reliance on documents voluntarily supplied during earlier enforcement proceedings. The appellant had chosen not to provide evidence within the later timetable and could not rely on that choice to challenge the use of the statements. His reliance on [2013] EWCA Civ 586 was misplaced because that decision stated the opposite.
5. Fairness and further evidence. The court would not infer unfairness or an evidential ambush without a transcript or a proper evidential basis. The appellant had an opportunity to address the obvious inferences from the statements; cross-examination of the respondent would not have assisted. The later statements were neither relied on at the appeal nor capable of affecting the result, so they were not admitted.

The order was therefore: extension of time allowed; application to admit further evidence dismissed; appeal dismissed with costs assessed under section 194 of the Legal Services Act 2007.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal was dismissed, with an extension of time granted and the application to admit further evidence dismissed: [2022] EWCA Civ 1301.
2. Central Family Court: HHJ Hughes QC made a committal order on 26 February 2021, committing the appellant to prison for six weeks suspended for 12 months on conditions concerning current maintenance and arrears.