Key Facts
- •Father (Ali Fakher) brought contempt proceedings against mother (Maryam Allami) regarding her conduct at the start of child welfare proceedings.
- •Proceedings involved an international element, with the family initially residing in Iran.
- •Mother obtained a passport order from Judd J. on July 22, 2022, to prevent the father from leaving the UK.
- •Service of the passport order was delayed due to a technical error.
- •Subsequent hearings resulted in adverse findings against the father, and the children now reside with the mother.
- •Father's contempt application, filed January 9, 2023, alleged the mother knowingly misled Judd J. with false statements.
- •Father was represented by a McKenzie friend, Mr. Lennard.
Legal Principles
Permission is required to proceed with a contempt application based on false statements made to the court.
Family Procedure Rules 2010, r.37.3(5)(b)
To grant permission for contempt proceedings based on false statements, there must be a strong prima facie case that the allegations will be proved to the criminal standard.
Collardeau v Fuchs & Anor [2024] EWHC 256 (Fam)
Contempt proceedings for breaches of court orders do not require prior permission, but the court retains jurisdiction to strike out meritless or abusive applications.
Practice Direction 37A
In contempt proceedings, the respondent must receive sufficient specific notice of the alleged contemptuous acts.
Case law cited in judgment
Contempt proceedings require proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Case law cited in judgment
Outcomes
Father's application for contempt based on false statements was dismissed.
The father failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a strong prima facie case that the mother's statements to Judd J. were knowingly false and made to mislead the court. The statements were vague and lacked specific detail. Further, the mother had no prior notice of the specific allegations.
Father's application for contempt based on delayed service of the order and failure to file a statement was struck out.
The mother was not in breach of any court order regarding service of the order or filing a statement. The court’s instruction to serve was not a court order, and no order mandated filing a statement.
The entire process was deemed an abuse of the court process.
The father's application lacked merit and was an attempt to negatively impact the mother.