Flora Abdul Sater v Samer Abdul Sater

In committal proceedings, the court may proceed in a respondent’s absence where he has been properly served, understands the seriousness of the hearing, has been given a genuine opportunity to attend and has chosen not to engage. The court must nevertheless proceed with the utmost caution because committal proceedings are quasi-criminal and may result in imprisonment. The decision requires a balance between fairness to the respondent, the likely utility of an adjournment, the impact of delay on children and the applicant’s access to justice.

A breach must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The applicant must establish knowledge of the order and its requirements, deliberate disobedience, knowledge of the facts constituting the breach, and the respondent’s ability to comply.

The applicant sought committal of the respondent for failing to comply with six High Court return orders concerning their three children, who had been wrongfully removed to Lebanon and remained there. The children were wards of the court and the respondent had been served with the committal application, particulars of breach, supporting evidence and notice of the hearing by email in accordance with an earlier order.

The respondent had been ordered to attend, was provided with a remote hearing link, did not attend and was not represented. The court had to determine whether to proceed in his absence, whether the alleged breaches were proved, and, if so, the appropriate sentence and further return order.

1. The court proceeded in the respondent’s absence. Applying the factors identified in Sanchez v Pawel Oboz & Anor [2015] EWHC 235 (Fam), the judge was satisfied that the respondent had been properly served, knew the seriousness of the hearing, had been warned that it might proceed in his absence, and had been given an opportunity to attend remotely. His persistent non-engagement, the absence of any explanation, the lack of a realistic prospect that an adjournment would secure his attendance, and the continuing delay affecting the children and applicant outweighed the case for adjournment. The court acted in accordance with Part 1 of the Family Procedure Rules and the overriding objective.

2. Each alleged breach had to be proved to the criminal standard. The applicant had to establish that the respondent knew the terms of each order, knew what was required, deliberately disobeyed it, knew the facts making his conduct a breach, and was able to comply. The respondent had a right to silence and no obligation to file evidence.

3. The court found beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent had breached six return orders. Each order clearly identified the children and required their return by a specified date or time. Each had been served by email, and the children had not been returned. The respondent was therefore in contempt of court on six occasions.

4. The breaches were particularly serious. They represented a deliberate and persistent flouting of court orders concerning children who remained wards of the court. The purposes of committal sentencing were to mark the seriousness of the contempt and to secure future compliance. The respondent was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, suspended for six months. A further return order required the children’s return within eight weeks, while continuing to require immediate return thereafter.

not stated in the judgment.