Andrew Paul Roberts v Kathryn Jayne Jones

On an appeal concerning enforcement of judgment debts, a court must not materially vary an order without notice where the variation affects the procedure or safeguards previously directed. Where questioning was ordered before a judge and relevant documents were required, those requirements could not be replaced informally by questioning before a court officer.

The court must consider appropriate measures for a vulnerable party, while preserving the other party’s opportunity to address any proposed variation. A suspended committal order must specify the sentence of imprisonment to be served. If it does not, it cannot validly support a later sentence for breach of its conditions. The slip rule cannot be used to add an unsupported recital concerning proceedings that were not before the court.

The appellant, a judgment creditor, appealed from orders made by His Honour Judge Beard in the County Court sitting at Swansea during enforcement proceedings under CPR Part 71. The respondent judgment debtor had been ordered to attend before a judge for questioning and to produce documents concerning her means.

At a later hearing, the judge permitted questioning by a court officer, without notice to the appellant, and imposed a suspended custodial sentence by reference to an earlier suspended committal order. The court also amended the later order under the slip rule to refer to parallel family contempt proceedings. The appeal concerned the validity of those steps and the relief that should follow.

1. Ground 1 allowed. The original order required the judgment debtor to be questioned before a judge and to produce relevant documents. Treating it as an order for questioning before a court officer was a mistake. The resulting procedure was, in substance, a variation of the order made without notice to the judgment creditor.
2. The absence of documents was material. The judge had not asked whether the relevant documents were available. If the court considered questioning before a court officer appropriate, it should have directed that course for a future hearing, required production of the documents, given notice of the proposed variation, and allowed the judgment creditor an opportunity to apply to set it aside.
3. In dealing with a vulnerable party, the court could have considered special measures under CPR Part 1 PD 1A, including screens, remote attendance or questioning through an intermediary. Such measures could have protected the debtor while preserving the ordered judicial process and the creditor’s participation.
4. The court expressed the provisional view that CPR 71.8(3)(b) gives a judge discretion, where the conditions of a properly drafted suspended committal order are breached, to make an appropriate order other than simply activating or discharging the suspended committal order. A custodial sentence could therefore have been imposed and suspended if the earlier order had been valid.
5. The earlier order was defective because it did not specify a sentence of imprisonment to be served. It was fundamentally flawed and could not support the later suspended sentence. The 14-day suspended sentence was therefore quashed.
6. Ground 4 allowed. The purported amendment under CPR 40.12 was unsupported by the papers. There was no basis for treating the family contempt proceedings as having been before the civil court at the relevant hearing. The amendment was directed to be struck out.
7. The civil CPR Part 71 proceedings were remitted to the County Court sitting at Swansea for further directions.

• High Court (King's Bench Division): appeal from orders made by His Honour Judge Beard in the County Court sitting at Swansea. The appeal was allowed on the grounds concerning the variation of the questioning order and the CPR 40.12 amendment. The CPR Part 71 proceedings were remitted for further directions.
• Court of Appeal: the judgment states that the route of appeal had initially been treated as lying in the Court of Appeal, but the correct route was to the High Court. The Court of Appeal judgment is cited as [2024] EWCA Civ 118 and contained the background.