Bailey v Bailey (Committal) (Rev1) [2022] EWFC 5 (4 February 2022)4 February 2022

Published: 22/02/2022 09:00

Peel J.

W’s application for committal of H and two others for breaches of financial remedy order following ‘almost interminable’ proceedings. H argued that the earlier financial remedy judgment (as opposed to order) was not admissible in the current application, pursuant to Hollington v Hewthorn [1943] KB 587 and subsequent line of cases. Peel J held that he would take into account the FR judgment to the extent that fairness required, while bearing in mind that the onus of proof lay on W, and the criminal standard of proof was applicable. H’s ‘grossly culpable’ and ‘barefaced’ contempt resulted in sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment. H had entered into sham mortgages with two other respondents to defeat W’s claims. These respondents, whose sentences were suspended, had not complied with order to remove mortgages from the Portuguese Land Registry.

©2023 Class Legal
Class Legal


Share this

    Most read