Abigail Laura Williams v Andrew John Williams

Contempt of court must be proved to the criminal standard. In sentencing for contempt, the court must address both punishment for non-compliance and securing future compliance. Where the contempt is serious and only custody is sufficient, imprisonment may nevertheless be suspended where suspension is likely to secure compliance with the underlying order. The court may impose a longer custodial term, with a shorter period to be served if the suspended sentence is activated. Costs caused by the respondent’s conduct may be ordered on an indemnity basis, while adequate provision must also be made for the respondent’s reasonable costs of complying with court orders.

The applicant sought the committal of the respondent for failing to comply with an order requiring him to file Form E and supporting documents in financial remedy proceedings. The respondent accepted that he knew of the order, that it contained a penal notice, and that he had failed to comply. The court therefore had to determine the appropriate sentence, including whether imprisonment should take immediate effect or be suspended, and the appropriate costs arrangements.

1. Contempt proved. The burden lay on the applicant, and the court had to be sure beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent was in contempt. The respondent’s informed admission established the contempt to that standard.
2. Sentencing principles. A sentence for contempt has two aspects: punishment for failure to comply with the order and securing compliance in the future. Both objectives had to be taken into account.
3. Custody and suspension. The contempt was sufficiently serious that only a custodial sentence would suffice. However, securing a comprehensive sworn Form E was an important objective. The court accordingly imposed 56 days’ imprisonment, suspended for 28 days on the condition that the respondent file the required Form E within 28 days. If activated, only 28 days would be served, with credit for one day already spent in custody.
4. Costs. The applicant was entitled to her costs on the indemnity basis because the respondent’s conduct had caused repeated hearings. Those costs were assessed at £58,000, but enforcement required leave because provision had already been made through legal services funding. The court also had to provide for the respondent’s costs of complying with its orders, while preventing him from dissipating frozen assets and becoming judgment proof. An immediate payment of £25,000 was authorised, with arrangements for the balance to be agreed or determined by the court.

Not stated in the judgment.