Ali Fakher v Maryam Allami

Permission is required before contempt proceedings based on an allegedly false statement can proceed. The applicant must show a strong prima facie case that the allegation would be proved to the criminal standard at a substantive hearing. Allegations must be sufficiently specific and supported by evidence. Contempt requires breach of an operative court order, not merely failure to comply with a judicial request or recital. The court may strike out proceedings with no prospect of success or which constitute an abuse of process.

The father brought contempt proceedings arising from earlier child-welfare proceedings and an urgent without-notice passport order obtained by the mother. He alleged that the mother knowingly made false statements to the judge, failed to secure timely service of the order, and failed to file a statement or note of the evidence relied upon at the hearing.

The court considered whether permission was required and whether the allegations disclosed contempt capable of proceeding.

1. Permission was required under r.37.3(5)(b) of the Family Procedure Rules 2010. The applicable test was whether there was a strong prima facie case that the allegations would be proved to the criminal standard at a substantive hearing.
2. The alleged false statements had not been specifically pleaded. The father had filed no evidence capable of proving their falsity beyond reasonable doubt, and several allegations were vague or semantic. Permission was therefore refused because the allegations had no prospect of success and were totally without merit.
3. The order required the court, rather than the mother, to effect service. No order required the mother to serve the father or file a statement. Contempt requires breach of an operative order requiring or prohibiting conduct, together with the necessary warning; a judicial request or indication is not itself an order.
4. The court retained jurisdiction to strike out contempt proceedings lacking merit or constituting an abuse of process. The remaining allegations were struck out as having no prospect of success. The process was characterised as totally without merit and an abuse of the court process.