Samuel Westrop v Mohamed Ali Harrath
[2023] EWCA Civ 1566
Andrew Paul Roberts v Kathryn Jayne Jones
14 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 290 (KB)
High Court
A woman didn't follow a court order. The judge made mistakes in how he dealt with her, and the higher court fixed those mistakes. The case will now go back to the lower court to be handled correctly, possibly with extra help for the woman involved.
Key Facts
- •Appeal from County Court at Swansea concerning a judgment debtor's failure to comply with a court order.
- •The debtor, Ms. Jones, failed to attend court hearings and produce relevant documents.
- •The judge questioned Ms. Jones via a court officer instead of a judge, as originally ordered.
- •A suspended sentence was imposed on Ms. Jones for contempt of court.
- •A prior suspended committal order was deemed defective.
- •An amendment to the court order was made under CPR 40.12, adding a recital about related family proceedings.
Legal Principles
Procedure for questioning judgment debtors under CPR 71.6(3) requires questioning by the judgment creditor or their representative before a judge.
CPR 71.6(3)
Courts have wide powers to deal with vulnerable parties under CPR Part 1 PD 1A, including the use of special measures.
CPR Part 1 PD 1A
A suspended committal order under Part 71 must specify a sentence of imprisonment; otherwise, it is defective.
Part 71
Amendments to orders under CPR 40.12 (slip rule) must be justified and based on demonstrable errors.
CPR 40.12
The court has discretion in sentencing for breaches of suspended committal orders, including the option to discharge the order rather than automatically activating it.
Rule 71.8(3)(b)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in respect of Ground 1 (variation of order without notice).
The court incorrectly varied the original order by having Ms. Jones questioned by a court officer instead of a judge, and she did not produce documents as ordered.
Suspended sentence of 14 days imprisonment quashed (Ground 2).
The suspended sentence was based on a defective prior committal order.
Amendment to the order of 5 April 2022 under CPR 40.12 struck out (Ground 4).
The amendment lacked sufficient justification, as it incorrectly stated that related family proceedings were considered at the hearing.
Civil proceedings remitted to County Court for further directions.
To address the issues arising from the flawed process and to determine the appropriate way forward for questioning Ms. Jones, considering possible special measures under PD1A.