A consent order had been made in proceedings between two brothers which provided that the respondent should instruct the solicitors acting for him on the sale of his property that the proceeds of sale were to be remitted to a nominated bank account. The respondent did not comply with the order and the applicant applied for him to be committed to prison.
Held: Vos J considered (inter alia) whether section 4 of Debtors Act 1869 prevented the order being enforced by committal, it being common ground that none of the exceptions applied.
Having considered Bates v Bates and an obiter passage from the judgment of Purchas LJ in Graham v Graham [1992] 2 FLR 406 at 414-415 commenting on Bates v Bates, Vos J said at [102]:
‘It seems to me that in reality, as I have said, there was probably very little between the two Lords Justices in Bates v. Bates. Both of them were saying in effect that where there is an order for the payment of money or the giving of security, but not the payment of an ordinary debt and not the payment of money directly to the claimant, then section 4 of the Debtors Act is not engaged. As it seems to me, that is the ratio of Bates v. Bates which I must follow and nothing that Purchas LJ says in Graham v. Graham casts any doubt whatever upon it.’
Section 4 did not apply because the order was one to give instructions to place monies in a deposit account when they arose by way of proceeds of sale of the property, and thus the case was analogous to Bates v Bates.
Vos J
[2011] EWHC 2172 (Ch)
Debtors Act 1869 4
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Bates v Bates (No 2) CA 21-Dec-1888
W petitioned for judicial separation from her husband on the ground of cruelty. An order was made that the respondent should pay the petitioner’s solicitor pounds 41 odd to cover costs already incurred and should pay into court pounds 40 as security . .
Cited – Graham v Graham CA 1992
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Hussain v Vaswani and Others CA 18-Sep-2020
Breach of Undertaking went Beyond Debt
The tenant had obtained a stay of execution of a warrant for possession, by undertaking to discharge the arrears. He failed to pay, and the Court now considered whether such a failure was a contempt with a possible imprisonment for punishment. The . .
Cited – Discovery Land Company, Llc and Others v Jirehouse (A Body Corporate) and Others ChD 16-Aug-2019
Request for committal of a defendant, a solicitor, for contempt of court inter alia for breaches of undertakings given personally by him (and his firm) to pay surplus funds from a transaction amounting to $9.3 million or the sterling equivalent into . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contempt of Court
Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.654053