Flora Abdul Sater v Samer Abdul Sater
[2023] EWHC 3509 (Fam)
Omay Ali Elhag Elkndo v Elnoaman Gassam Elsyed & Ors (Committal: Findings)
22 August 2024
[2024] EWHC 2204 (Fam)
High Court
A father took his children to Sudan and ignored court orders to bring them back to the UK. The court found him guilty of contempt and will decide his punishment at a later hearing. Because he didn't attend court, the judge decided to go ahead and rule anyway.
Key Facts
- •The claimant, the maternal aunt of six children, seeks the committal to prison of the defendant, their father.
- •The children are subject to wardship proceedings due to concerns of physical abuse by the father.
- •The father allegedly removed the children to Sudan and has not returned them despite court orders.
- •The mother of the children died unexpectedly while attempting to return from Sudan.
- •The father has not engaged with the committal proceedings and was not present at the hearing.
- •The court considered whether to proceed in the father's absence.
Legal Principles
Procedural requirements for a committal application for contempt are codified in rule 37 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010.
Family Procedure Rules 2010, rule 37
A committal application for contempt may proceed in the absence of the defendant (FPR 2010, rule 37.4(o)).
FPR 2010, rule 37.4(o)
The court must consider the overriding objective of dealing with the case justly, expeditiously and fairly when deciding whether to proceed in a defendant's absence.
FPR 2010, rule 1.1
Contempt of court must be proven to the criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt).
Case law implication
Outcomes
The court found the defendant in breach of seven court orders relating to the return of the children and attendance at hearings.
The evidence supporting the breaches was largely incontrovertible and met the criminal standard of proof.
The court decided to proceed with the committal application despite the defendant's absence.
The court considered the factors in Sanchez v Oboz [2015] EWHC 235 (Fam) and determined that the defendant had been adequately served, had sufficient notice, and had waived his right to be present by his persistent non-engagement.
A further hearing was listed to determine the penalty for the proven contempts.
To allow the court to consider appropriate sanctions for the father's actions.