Odulate v Odulate [2026] EWFC 159

Judgment date: 23 June 2026

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2026/159

HHJ Hess (sitting as a deputy High Court judge). Committal proceedings following husband’s non-compliance with a financial remedy order made almost four years ago. Six months immediate term of imprisonment.

Factual background

The parties were married with two children. They are of Nigerian heritage but they lived in England for the material times, had a property in England and the children were largely educated in England, such that it was determined the English court was the appropriate forum for their divorce and financial remedies to be decided.

A final hearing of the financial remedy proceedings took place in September 2022 and as part of that judgment, it was determined that a property in Miami, USA would be transferred to W within seven days of the order, as well as a lump sum payment (amongst other orders). It was determined that the property was jointly owned and the judge was persuaded that he had jurisdiction to make a property adjustment order in favour of W.

Since that order was made, H refused to transfer the Miami property to W. He also strongly resisted any attempts of enforcement in the courts in Florida. At the time of the hearing, the property remained in joint names and W had no access to it.

W’s application was initially adjourned generally. However, after she produced evidence of her effects to serve the order on H, and after the judge had seen legal opinions from Nigeria and Miami that the pursual of her application may assist her applications for enforcement, the matter proceeded.

Outcome

HHJ Hess was ‘entirely satisfied that every possible attempt has been made to personally serve the application, and that the husband has resisted by a series of measures’. He was also satisfied that indirect measures of service had been successful and that H was, beyond any reasonable doubt, aware of the application and the fact that he was not at the hearing to defend it was his own decision. HHJ Hess was satisfied that H had been properly served and that his lack of engagement was consistent with his previous conduct.

HHJ Hess held that H is in contempt for breaching his order and that given how he has behaved, a prison sentence is entirely justified. After weighing up the seriousness of the breach (being deliberate and serious) alongside the purpose of the application and what it is trying to achieve, HHJ Hess rejected the suggestion of an 18-month term of imprisonment. He said:

‘This seems to long for what we are trying to achieve, which is to make clear this court's disapproval of the husband's contempt, to encourage him to comply with the order, but also to provide clear guidance to the courts in Nigeria and Miami that the English court regards his behaviour as in contempt. In this context my view is that it is appropriate to order a period of six months imprisonment. I have considered whether that should be suspended. This is sometimes appropriate where somebody was promising to obey the order in the future – that is not the case here. It seems pointless to expect the wife to come back to activate that order when, in light of his behaviour, he has simply ignored my order with no promise of better behaviour in the future.’

Accordingly, HHJ Hess made a six-month order for immediate imprisonment. He added that he would expect H to be immediately apprehended to serve that sentence should he touch down on English soil. A costs order was also made in favour of W.