Facts

W made a notice to show cause application as to why H should not be committed to prison for failure to comply with a court order dated 17 April 2024 (‘the April Order’). Specifically, it was alleged that H had failed to comply with paragraphs 3–8 of the April Order. Paragraphs 3–6 were not detailed in the judgment; however, H had admitted breaching the same at a prior hearing. Paragraphs 7 and 8 required H to provide additional information and documentation in relation to an additional bank account in his name and in relation to relatively large lump sums that H had received into that additional bank account. H did not initially admit breaches of paragraphs 7 and 8 of the April Order. He claimed he had no knowledge of the additional bank account in his name or that he had received the large lump sums identified. Eventually, whilst giving evidence, H did admit such breaches but sought to justify the same.

A disclosure order had uncovered that the additional account in H’s name did in fact exist. Further, statements also showed the alleged transfers of the relatively large lump sums (including of £20,000 and £25,000) moving into the account. H attempted to explain away the account and the transfers in a number of ways, claiming first that it was a trading account for an unincorporated business. When it was pointed out that transactions in the account showed that the account was used for day-to-day expenditure, suggesting it was not a trading account, H maintained that he couldn’t remember the existence of the account or its use on a day-to-day basis, explaining this was because he was high on cocaine. H also attempted to explain that his son had a card for the account and that he may have used it for the day-to-day transactions.

Findings

The court found that H had lied to the court when he said he had no recollection of the account or knowledge of the transfer of the relatively large lump sums into the account. H’s latter admission of breaching paragraphs 7 and 8, and his earlier admissions of breaching paragraphs 3–6, were done begrudgingly and with caveats/explanations which were not substantiated with evidence.

H’s failure to comply with orders was a consistent feature of this case and continued to the date of judgment. The judge found that H showed no remorse: he had in fact stated in court that he would only comply with further orders for disclosure on his terms, namely that he wouldn’t disclose certain documents for commercially sensitive reasons.

Sentence

For his breach of paragraph 7, namely his deliberate refusal to disclose bank statements for an account which he had falsely claimed he had no knowledge of, H was sentenced to 28 days of imprisonment. For his breach of paragraph 8, through his lie by claiming that he had no recollection of receipt of the sums of £25,000 and £20,000, H was sentenced to a period of 28 days of imprisonment. For breaches of paragraphs 3–6 of the April Order, he was sentenced to 14 days’ imprisonment for each breach.

All sentences were to run concurrently and were to be suspended until conclusion of the financial remedies proceedings (including implementation of the final order).