Claire Mireille N'djosse v Ifedayo Adedapo Kolawole Adeyeye

Contempt for breach of a mandatory family order requires proof beyond reasonable doubt that the order clearly required the defendant to do a particular act, that the act was not done, and that it was within the defendant’s power to do it. The burden remains on the applicant throughout. A deliberate failure to take reasonable steps capable of securing a child’s return may constitute contempt, even where the defendant is imprisoned. Sentencing must mark the court’s disapproval and seek future compliance, while remaining proportionate. Imprisonment is a sanction of last resort. Successive mandatory orders may generate fresh contempt proceedings where each new order is deliberately disobeyed.

The Applicant applied to commit the Defendant for contempt. The alleged breaches concerned a return order requiring him to secure the return of their child from Nigeria to France, and orders requiring payment of a £3,000 lump sum and £2,000 in costs. The Defendant had previously been sentenced to six months’ imprisonment for contempt arising from earlier return orders. He accepted that he had taken no steps to cause a fresh Nigerian application addressing the alleged fraud by which guardianship had been obtained, and had made no payments. The central issues were whether the breaches were proved to the criminal standard and, if so, what sanction was proportionate.

1. Procedural compliance. The contempt application complied with the applicable requirements of Family Procedure Rules 2010 Part 37. The Defendant had received the orders, which contained penal notices, and had been informed of his right to remain silent. The alleged contempt was therefore considered on the basis that it had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Return order. Applying the principles stated in Re A (A Child) [2008] EWCA Civ 1138 and Re L-W (Children) [2010] EWCA Civ 1253, the court identified what the order required, considered whether the Defendant had complied, and determined whether compliance was within his power. The Defendant had failed to cause a fresh Nigerian set-aside application to be made which fully explained the alleged fraud, although he had been advised to do so and had demonstrated that he could communicate with lawyers and family members while imprisoned. The breach was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Payment orders. The Defendant had taken no steps to pay either the lump sum or the costs. His explanations were not cogent, and he produced no up-to-date financial evidence. Those breaches were also proved beyond reasonable doubt.
4. Sentence. The court applied the principles summarised in Elkndo v Elsyed [2024] EWHC 2230. The return-order breach was a second, flagrant breach showing serious disregard for the court’s authority. Nothing short of imprisonment would mark the disobedience and encourage future compliance. A sentence of 12 months was imposed and was not suspended. No separate penalty was imposed for the payment breaches because that would not be necessary or proportionate in light of the sentence for the return-order breach. The Defendant remained liable to pay the outstanding sums.