Moor J. Successful application by H for W’s committal to prison for non-compliance with orders from 2019 and 2023.

This litigation has been ongoing for quite some time with the financial remedy proceedings being heard by Mostyn J in June 2019. In the 2019 order it was recited that H was the sole beneficial owner of two significant properties: Chalet Pearl and Villa Pearl. They were to be transferred to him on the basis that he paid W a lump sum of £709,707 and she would be released from her covenants under the mortgage.

Enforcement proceedings were issued by H and came before Moor J on 23 January 2023 who listed them for a further hearing at which W could make representations. At the first hearing an undertaking that W would transfer the rental monies from the chalets into an escrow account was accepted. At a February hearing Moor J ordered that:

• W should give vacant possession of Chalet Pearl by March 7;
• W to surrender all her keys and access codes for the property to H;
• W to give H all documentation to enable H to undertake the running of the property; and
• W to transfer deposits received for future rentals to H.

W attempted to appeal this order but this was refused by Moylan LJ on the basis that it had no real prospect of success.

On 31 March 2023 H applied for W’s committal to prison for:

• failure to deliver up vacant possession;
• failure to surrender keys and access codes;
• failure to deliver up documentation;
• failure to transfer deposits for future rentals;
• failure to pay money into the escrow account;
• failure to transfer legal title to him.

W’s solicitors came off the record so alternate service was ordered by Theis J. However, W did not attend the next directions hearing before Moor J, nor did she file a defence. The hearing continued without her as Moor J was satisfied she had notice of it and she was not obliged to file a defence.

At a November final hearing before Moor J, M did not attend. Instead, she sent a position statement suggesting she had limited English language skills and a hearing in France the next day. Given that she was entitled to the services of an interpreter and she had not requested an online hearing Moor J considered she had never intended to appear at the hearing and it could proceed without her.

He reminded himself that the standard of proof was the criminal standard, ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

Moor J was satisfied that vacant possession had not been delivered up and the keys, access codes and documentation had not been surrendered.

W did not advance a case that there were no rental deposits to transfer to H, therefore, Moor J had to find that she had not complied with the order.

However, he could not find beyond reasonable doubt that W had not paid the rental income from January 2023–February 2023 into the escrow account because he did not have evidence of the outgoings which would be paid from the rental monies. There was a possibility, although a slim one, that there was no profit to pay into the escrow account.

Further, Moor J could not find beyond reasonable doubt that legal title to Chalet Pearl had not been transferred. He could not be sure if she had received a transfer document or whether it had been made clear to her that H had a suitable mortgage offer in order to release her from her mortgage covenants.

An immediate sentence of three months’ imprisonment was imposed as W showed no intention of complying with the orders and the non-compliance extended over a long period of time. She was given permission to apply to purge her contempt if she complied with the February 2023 order.