Alison Elizabeth Corbel & Anor v Nigel Henry Golding

Contempt of court must be proved to the criminal standard. The applicant must establish the respondent’s knowledge of the order, conduct constituting a breach, and knowledge of the facts making the conduct a breach. Sentencing requires assessment of culpability and harm, while balancing punishment and deterrence against the need to secure compliance. Repeated deliberate refusal to obey clear orders may justify custody, and imprisonment may be made conditional on compliance. A litigant in person remains subject to ordinary procedural and substantive rules. Unjustified repeated non-compliance may warrant indemnity costs.

The claimants had brought a Part 8 claim seeking the defendant’s removal as executor of his late mother’s will. Earlier orders required him to deliver the original will and estate documents. He did not comply with orders made by Deputy Master Bowles, Master Brightwell and Marcus Smith J. The defendant’s appeal against the earlier decision of Deputy Master Bowles had been struck out. Two contempt applications were heard together, along with an application concerning approval of a copy will in the absence of the original. The central issues were proof of contempt, sentence and costs.

Disposition. The two contempt applications succeeded. The defendant was found guilty and sentenced to seven months’ imprisonment unless, by 4pm on the Friday specified in the judgment, he delivered the original will and the other estate documents required by the order of Marcus Smith J. The claimants were awarded the costs of the contempt applications and the copy-will application on the indemnity basis, summarily assessed, with unpaid costs charged on the defendant’s share of the estate.

1. Liability for contempt. The applicants had to prove to the criminal standard that the defendant knew the terms of the orders, that he acted or failed to act in a way constituting a breach, and that he knew the facts making his conduct a breach. Each element required proof to that standard, although every underlying fact or item of evidence did not. The court applied that approach, discussed in Business Mortgage Finance 4 Plc v Hussain [2022] EWHC 449 (Ch) at [39] and affirmed by the Court of Appeal in [2023] 1 WLR 396 at [96]. It found all three elements proved. The orders were clear, the required documents had not been delivered, and the defendant knew that fact.
2. Procedural fairness. The defendant’s right to silence and the need for procedural fairness were recognised. However, although allowance could be made for a litigant in person’s lack of legal training, there was no general dispensation from procedural or substantive rules. The court applied the principle stated in Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] 1 WLR 1119.
3. Sentence. Under rule 81.9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court considered imprisonment, a fine and other sanctions. The purposes of sentence included punishment and deterrence, together with encouraging compliance. The court assessed culpability and harm, having regard to Attorney General v Crosland [2021] 4 WLR 103 at [44]. The principles in Lightfoot v Lightfoot [1989] 1 FLR 414 were treated as not necessarily applicable because they arose in the context of a freezing order and disclosure obligations. Three deliberate refusals to comply with clear orders showed high culpability and significant harm to the administration of justice. The defendant’s age, hearing loss, status as a litigant in person and property concerns did not materially mitigate the contempt. Custody was necessary, and seven months was the shortest commensurate term. A conditional sentence was selected to encourage compliance.
4. Costs. The ordinary rule that the unsuccessful party pays the successful party’s costs applied. The defendant’s separate and unproved claims concerning a property interest and expenditure on his parents did not affect the self-contained contempt proceedings. His repeated absolute refusal to obey court orders was conduct outside the norm and justified indemnity costs.

This was a first-instance determination. The judgment records that Deputy Master Bowles removed the defendant as executor and ordered delivery of the documents; an appeal was struck out after an unless order. Master Brightwell and Marcus Smith J later made further delivery orders. The present court heard and determined two contempt applications and related costs and copy-will issues.