Deborah Biggadike v Professor Sohier Elneil

A suspended committal order for failure to attend judgment-debtor questioning is discretionary and must not be made routinely. Under the Civil Procedure Rules, the court must consider the nature and all the circumstances of the contempt, including whether the failure was intentional and any obstructive conduct. The judge must also consider the available procedural options. A suspended order may be made where the debtor was served, the judge is sure to the criminal standard that the failure to attend was intentional, and the order is appropriate in all the circumstances.

The claimant, whose damages judgment against the second defendant remained largely unpaid, sought a suspended committal order. The underlying judgment concerned unnecessary surgery and failure to obtain informed consent. An order required the second defendant to attend court for questioning about her means and ability to pay. After alternative service, she did not attend on 20 May 2025.

The second defendant relied on medical evidence of mental ill health but did not attend the committal hearing. The issue was whether the claimant had established intentional non-compliance to the criminal standard and whether a suspended committal order was appropriate.

The application for a suspended committal order was granted. The court treated Broomleigh Housing Association v Okonkwo [2011] HLR 5 as establishing that committal is not routine. The judge must exercise discretion, consider the nature and all the circumstances of the contempt, and consider the available alternatives. A suspended order may be made if the debtor was served, the judge is sure to the criminal standard that the failure to attend was intentional, and the order is appropriate.

The judge was sure that the order to attend on 20 May 2025 had been served in accordance with the alternative-service order. The second defendant had signed to acknowledge receipt, had been reminded of the hearing date, and had never said she was unaware of it.

The medical material did not explain her absence on that date. The general practitioner’s notes did not cover the relevant period or address her ability to attend court. The later psychiatrist’s letter concerned fitness for work, not attendance for questioning, and also did not cover 20 May 2025.

The second defendant’s preparation for, attendance at, and participation in a professional disciplinary hearing supported the conclusion that she could have attended court to answer questions about her means. The judge recognised that such proceedings could be stressful but found no good reason why she could not attend this questioning appointment. The judge was satisfied that she had intentionally failed to attend and was seeking to frustrate the court’s processes.

The judge could not be sure that the second defendant had spoken at an event advertised for 20 May 2025. That uncertainty did not change the result. The claimant was invited to submit a final draft order for the judge’s consideration.

This was a first-instance enforcement application. The underlying damages judgment was given by HHJ Carmel Wall on 2 July 2024; no citation for that judgment is stated.