Doweck v Doweck [2026] EWFC 238 (B)

Judgment date: 4 August 2026

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2026/238

DJ Hammond.

‘No individual is bigger or more important than the Court. When the Court makes an order it must be complied with’ [32]

The court was concerned with an application for committal by W to commit H to prison. It was alleged that H, aged 88, had breached the order of 15 June 2026 which provided that he send to the court and to W his replies to her questionnaire and request for further documents by 24 June (‘the June Order’). A penal notice was attached to that paragraph of the Order. This order essentially repeated an earlier order made at an adjourned FDA in March 2026 requiring H reply to W’s questionnaire by 20 April 2026 (‘the March Order’). A penal notice was not attached to the March Order, but it provided that a failure to comply would amount to contempt of court.

The June Order was deficient as it did not contain a statement of right that any party affected by the order to apply to have it set aside, varied or stayed, which is a mandatory requirement (FPR 4.3(5)(b)). However, the absence of the mandatory requirement did not render the committal defective as at the time H was represented by experienced financial remedy solicitors who would have been aware of the absolute right to apply to vary orders made in the absence of a party, and it was reasonable to assume that H would have received such advice or had the benefit of that knowledge.

Background

At the First Appointment in November 2025, H was represented but this was adjourned following concerns raised by H’s counsel that he might lack litigation capacity. At that hearing, H received the questionnaire. A capacity assessment later confirmed that he had capacity to litigate. At the adjourned FDA in March 2026, H dispensed with his legal representation and was unrepresented. H was directed to answer the questionnaire, but he was dissatisfied with being ordered to do so as he felt W was in a better position to answer the questions having been involved in the day-to-day running of the various businesses and W had returned to the FMH on multiple occasions and had removed all key documents.

The matter was listed for a FDR and prior to that H instructed another experienced firm of financial remedy solicitors. They indicated that H could not produce replies in time for the FDR. Agreement was sought to adjourn the FDR, but this was not agreed by W’s solicitors, and she proceeded with the D11 application to repeat the direction to answer the questionnaire with a penal notice attached. The application was successful and the June Order was made. No application was made to appeal, extend time to comply nor vary the extent of the questionnaire; [19]. H eventually provided unsigned replies on 3 July 2026; they were woefully deficient and 15 questions remained unanswered or unsupported by the documentary evidence requested.

Decision

The judge was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the June Order had been breached by H, and that he did so intentionally because he took issue with the original order made at the adjourned FDA. This was because H had argued that the order should not have been made, and they were requesting information that W already had. This was considered irrelevant as the documents and information would either be in H’s possession or he would have been able to obtain them; [30]. The judge also determined that H had wilfully breached the order.

The judge was not persuaded it was an inability to provide the disclosure that caused H to fail to answer the questionnaire as it had repeatedly made clear that he had refused to provide several classes of documents as he felt W had taken documents and, in any event, she was better placed to provide the information. H was found to have been intelligent enough to know where to obtain the information requested but instead chose to embark on a campaign against W and her legal representation. The effect of H’s actions had been to significantly delay the litigation and deprive her of the information she needed to determine how she ran her case before the court.