Sandra Ozturk v Yilmaz Ozturk [2025] EWFC 333 (B)

Judgment date: 7 October 2025

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2025/333

HHJ Moreton. Suspended committal activated: 28 days’ immediate imprisonment for wilful breach of a Form E disclosure order in financial remedy proceedings.

This was a Notice to Show Cause following an earlier committal order made on 8 May 2025 – Ozturk v Ozturk [2025] EWFC 162 (B) – when the respondent husband (H) received 28 days’ imprisonment suspended on condition that he file a completed Form E with supporting documents within 28 days of personal service. A summary of the May judgment can be read here.

The May order was personally served on 20 May 2025, giving a compliance deadline of 17 June 2025. The applicant wife (W) contended that H had not complied.

Unlike previous hearings, H attended the hearing in person. He confirmed he did not require an interpreter, declined an adjournment for legal advice or representation, and was advised of his right to silence and against self-incrimination. H admitted personal service of the 8 May 2025 order and accepted that he had not filed his Form E or any supporting documentation; breach was therefore clearly established; [7].

In mitigation, H asserted that the divorce and finances should be dealt with in Turkey and that he did not understand the May order because he cannot read English. The judge found these explanations unsatisfactory and inconsistent: H had understood and paid the May costs order (£2,210.40), had run at least one pizza business, held multiple bank accounts, managed commercial lease arrangements, and had not at any stage sought translations or assistance with documents. The judge found that H regarded the assets as ‘my money’, was resistant and evasive about his financial affairs, and had consciously chosen not to comply with disclosure obligations. On the balance of probabilities, it was found that H understood what was required of him regarding financial disclosure and had wilfully failed to comply; [15].

Given the persistent and deliberate non-compliance, the court had no confidence that a further suspension would secure disclosure. The previously suspended sentence was therefore activated immediately; [16].

No permission to appeal was required.

This judgment has not been certified as citeable pursuant to the Practice Note (Citation of Cases: Restrictions and Rules) [2001] 1 WLR 1001.