ABC v DEF
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE STUART-SMITH
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Tort Law
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involved the Claimant seeking to commit the Defendant for contempt of court for allegedly breaching an injunction order issued in 2008. The Defendant counter-applied to strike out the Claimant’s application. The court found the Defendant in contempt and imposed a suspended sentence of 7 months imprisonment, emphasizing the seriousness of the breaches and the Defendant's responsibility despite mental health issues.
Judgment
Mr Justice Stuart-Smith:
Introduction
On 9 August 2013 the Claimant issued an application to commit the Defendant for contempt of court, alleging that he had breached the terms of an injunction order made by HHJ Seymour QC, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, dated 30 October 2008. The Defendant issued an application on 12 August 2014 asking for the Claimant’s application to be struck out or to be prosecuted forthwith. In response, on 9 September 2014 the Claimant issued a further application to commit, alleging further breaches of HHJ Seymour’s order.
As appears later in this judgment, the factual background is complicated by the long term medical issues facing the Defendant. Because of the potential implications for the Defendant (and also for the Claimant and his family) in the event that their identities were to be disclosed, I have anonymised this judgment and direct that no steps that may lead to the identification of the parties or their respective families should be published without further order.
These three applications came before the Court on 17 September 2014. At the end of the hearing I gave my decision, which was that the contempts were proved and that the appropriate sanction was a term of imprisonment of 7 months suspended for 2 years. The Defendant’s application was dismissed. This judgment sets out my reasons.
I need to provide some factual detail to explain how the case has come about and why it did not reach court for effective determination until September 2014, when the contempts upon which the Claimant relies were committed between May 2013 and March 2014.
The Factual Background
The Claimant is a Lebanese national. He lives in London with his wife and four children. His wife is the Defendant’s sister. The Defendant lives in the United States, and has done so for some years. The extended family have interests in a group of companies [“the X Group”], which is engaged in construction and particularly active in the Middle East and Africa. The X Group headquarters are in Athens but at least one of the Group companies is registered in London. The Claimant works for the X Group. The Defendant does not: although he has had some employment in the past, he is at present unemployed. It is clear that the Claimant is wealthier than the Defendant and that, over the years, he has supported the Defendant with substantial funding. Regrettably, the Claimant and the Defendant fell out over the funding of a swimming pool and enclo