Chaimae Chat Kaha v Adil Lahmer
[2024] EWHC 2439 (Fam)
Samira Addou v Sidali Bannabi
11 May 2023
[2023] EWHC 2469 (Fam)
High Court
A dad didn't return his child to England even though the court told him to many times. Because he ignored the court, a judge ordered to take away some of his money to make him cooperate and bring the child back.
Key Facts
- •Mother (Samira Addou) and father (Sidali Bannabi) of child C (age 2) travelled to Algeria in November 2021.
- •Father initiated divorce proceedings in Algeria and prevented mother's return with C.
- •Mother returned to England in February 2022 without C.
- •Father subsequently removed C from mother's family in March 2022.
- •Father ignored multiple court orders to return C to England.
- •Father left England in September 2022 despite court orders.
- •Father was found in contempt of court in December 2022 and sentenced to a suspended 18-month prison term, conditional on C's return by December 16, 2022.
- •Father failed to comply with subsequent court orders to return C by February 3rd and March 10th, 2023.
- •Father did not attend court hearings and claimed the UK court lacked jurisdiction.
- •Father was served with all court documents, including those relating to sequestration.
Legal Principles
Committal proceedings may proceed in the respondent's absence with caution and regard for fairness.
Sanchez v Pawel Oboz [2015] EWHC 235 (Fam)
Presumption of innocence applies in committal proceedings.
Implicit in the judgment
Court considers factors such as service of documents, sufficient notice, reasons for non-appearance, waiver of right to be present, likelihood of adjournment securing attendance, disadvantage to respondent from absence, prejudice to applicant from delay, prejudice to process from absence, and overriding objective before proceeding in respondent's absence.
Implicit in the judgment based on Cobb J's principles in Sanchez v Oboz
Outcomes
Father found in contempt of court for repeatedly breaching orders to return C to England.
Beyond all reasonable doubt, the father failed to return C and thus breached multiple court orders.
Sequestration order made against the father.
Father's repeated breaches, refusal to return C, and ineffectiveness of previous bank account freezing measures justified the order.