VB v JG

In contempt proceedings with a criminal complexion for the purposes of Article 6, the alleged contemnor must be allowed to cross-examine on matters relevant to the legitimacy of the application’s purpose and the proportionality of committal. Advance case management directions should not restrict that cross-examination. The court determining liability must consider whether the application is proportionate to the gravity of the alleged conduct and whether it pursues legitimate aims. The court must remain alert to applications brought for illegitimate or improper collateral purposes.

The applicant sought permission to appeal, and an appeal if permission were granted, against a case management order made by HHJ Willans. The order restricted her cross-examination to matters concerning the fact of alleged breaches of a non-molestation order.

The issue was whether the restriction was permissible under the case management powers in Part 37.7(1) of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, having regard to the criminal complexion of contempt proceedings, Article 6 rights, proportionality and the legitimacy of the application’s purpose. The respondent ultimately accepted the applicant’s central arguments.

1. The appeal was allowed by consent. Paragraph 1 of HHJ Willans’s order dated 27 January 2025 was set aside, the hearing listed for 1 May 2025 was vacated, and costs were reserved.
2. Contempt proceedings have a criminal complexion for Article 6 purposes. The alleged contemnor is entitled to cross-examine on all issues relevant to the committal application.
3. Case management powers cannot be used to restrict, in advance of the hearing, cross-examination on matters relevant to the legitimacy of the application’s purpose or the proportionality of a committal order.
4. In determining liability, the court must consider, among other matters, whether the application is proportionate by reference to the gravity of the alleged conduct and whether it is brought for legitimate aims. Committal applications must not be pursued for illegitimate or improper collateral purposes.
5. The judge clarified that his earlier written remarks concerning arguability did not determine the merits. Permission required a real prospect of success or another compelling reason under rule 31.3(7) of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, and an appeal could be allowed where the decision was wrong or unjust because of procedural irregularity under rule 30.12(3).

The judgment concerned an appeal from a case management order made by HHJ Willans on 27 January 2025. The High Court allowed the appeal by consent, set aside paragraph 1 of that order and vacated the hearing listed for 1 May 2025.