Samira Addou v Sidali Bannabi
[2023] EWHC 2469 (Fam)
Flora Abdul Sater v Samer Abdul Sater
21 August 2023
[2023] EWHC 3509 (Fam)
High Court
A dad didn't bring his kids back to the UK from Lebanon even though the judge told him to several times. The judge was really angry, found the dad guilty, and gave him a suspended prison sentence. The dad now has to bring the kids back or go to jail.
Key Facts
- •Father, Samer Abdul Sater, failed to return three children to the UK from Lebanon following five High Court return orders.
- •Mother, Flora Abdul Sater, applied for committal for contempt of court.
- •Father did not attend the hearing despite being ordered to do so, and was not represented.
- •The children were wrongfully removed from the UK to Lebanon in June 2022.
- •Father initiated custody proceedings in Lebanon in November 2022.
- •The High Court made multiple return orders between December 2022 and July 2023.
- •Father was served with all orders and relevant documents via email and WhatsApp.
- •Court considered the authority of Sanchez v Pawel Oboz & Anor [2015] EWHC 235 (Fam) in deciding whether to proceed in the father's absence.
Legal Principles
Committal proceedings are quasi-criminal and require the criminal standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt).
Part 37 of the Family Procedure Rules
The court must proceed with caution before proceeding in the absence of the respondent in quasi-criminal proceedings.
Sanchez v Pawel Oboz & Anor [2015] EWHC 235 (Fam)
The court must consider the overriding objective when deciding whether to proceed in the absence of a party.
Part 1 of the Family Procedure Rules
On an application for committal, the applicant must prove deliberate disobedience with court orders, including the respondent's knowledge of the orders, their breach, and their ability to comply.
Outcomes
The court proceeded in the father's absence.
The father was properly served, aware of the hearing, and chose not to attend. Further delay would prejudice the children and the mother's access to justice.
The father was found in contempt of court for breaching six return orders.
The court found beyond reasonable doubt that the father knew the terms of each order, deliberately disobeyed them, and was able to comply but chose not to.
The father was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment, suspended for six months.
The breaches were considered particularly serious due to their persistent nature and the impact on the children. The suspended sentence aimed to secure future compliance.
A further return order was made for the children to be returned within eight weeks.
To ensure the children's return to the UK.