header-logo header-logo

24 November 2011 / Claire Sanders
Issue: 7491 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Child law , Family , LexisPSL
printer mail-detail

No second chances

In what circumstances can a family court issue a second committal order for contempt, asks Claire Sanders

In family proceedings, committal orders are orders of last resort to be avoided wherever there is a reasonable alternative available instead. The purpose of such proceedings is to mark the courts disapproval of disobeying its orders and to secure future compliance.The powers of the court to deal with contempt are set out in the Contempt of Court Act 1981 (CCA 1981), in particular, s 14(1), under which the court may commit a person to prison for contempt for a maximum term of two years. 

 
In a case where the respondent has already served the maximum sentence of imprisonment for breaching a previous order can the court impose a further sentence of imprisonment for contempt? That was the issue in Re W (a child) (abduction: committal) [2011] 1 All ER (D) 83 (Aug).

Facts

The parties, who were never married, had a child aged four and a half who lived with the
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll