Court of Appeal addresses procedural irregularities in contempt proceedings under CPR Part 71: Roberts v Jones.

Citation: [2024] EWCA Civ 118
Judgment on


The case of Andrew Paul Roberts v Kathryn Jayne Jones before the Court of Appeal, Civil Division, raises intriguing legal issues surrounding the proper procedures in handling contempt proceedings under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) Part 71. The decision addresses the correct form and localization of appeals, the legitimacy of court practices in examination of judgment debtors, as well as remedies and sanctions in contempt cases.

Key Facts

In this case, Andrew Paul Roberts, the appellant, sought enforcement of a default judgment against Kathryn Jayne Jones, the respondent. Following Ms. Jones’ repeated failures to comply with court orders to provide information regarding her means, enforcement escalated to Part 71 proceedings, resulting in a suspended committal order. The debtor’s absence prompted the issuance of an arrest warrant and eventual presentation before His Honour Judge Beard, which culminated in a suspended sentence and questions raised over the correctness of procedures and subsequent orders. This led to an appeal on several grounds.

The case turned on the application of the following legal principles:

  1. CPR Part 71 Procedures: This concerns court protocols for obtaining information from judgment debtors and the consequences for failure to comply, including contempt of court.

  2. Appeals: Discussed here is the pursuit of a correct appellate path in contempt proceedings, section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 versus paragraph 5(1) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) Order 2016.

  3. Contempt of Court and Committal Orders: The appeal also debated the appropriateness and form of punishment for contempt, referring to the validity and execution of suspended committal orders within these proceedings.

  4. Use of ‘Slip Rule’ under CPR 40.12: The appropriateness of amending orders under the ‘slip rule’, enabling corrections of accidental slips or omissions, was critically examined.

In the analysis of these principles, references were made to other notable case laws, notably:

  • Westrop v Harrath [2023] EWCA Civ 1566, which was pertinent concerning the implementation of suspended committal orders under Part 71.

  • Hurst v Barnet [2002] 4 All ER 457 and Massie v H and M [2011] EWCA Civ 115, that discuss the pathways for appeals in cases of contempt.


The Court concluded on several points:

  • The suspension of Ms. Jones’ sentence was quashed due to a procedural irregularity in the formation of the initial suspended committal order.

  • The appeal under ground 1 succeeded because the debtor was erroneously examined by a court officer rather than by a judge, as required by the 5 May 2021 order.

  • The amendment made to the 5 April 2022 order under the ‘slip rule’ was improper and was accordingly struck out.

  • The case was remitted to the County Court sitting in Swansea for further directions regarding the continued examination of the debtor’s finances.


The Court’s rigorous scrutiny unearthed multiple procedural shortcomings, highlighting the critical need for precision in drafting court orders and judicious adherence to established protocols in civil proceedings. The judgment stands as a testament to the courts’ dedication to fairness and the rule of law, serving as a point of reference for future contempt proceedings and the treatment of vulnerable parties within the UK legal system. This case reinforces the foundational legal principle that contempt of court is a serious matter warranting meticulous judicial consideration and clear justification for any custodial sentence, while also underscoring the importance of systematic court procedures in enforcing judicial orders.

Related Summaries