BL-2021-002235 - [2025] EWHC 1966 (Ch)

First of all, the applicant submitted that it was appropriate for the court to dispense with personal service of the 2022 order. This was because the respondent had in fact been served with copies of the sealed order both by email and post, and moreover the respondent referred to both the judgment and the order in a number of items of correspondence, thus showing that he was well aware of its terms. Indeed, on more than one occasion he has averred that he has adhered to those terms (for example, in his letter of 2 January 2025). He would therefore suffer no conceivable prejudice from the absence of personal service.

Secondly, the applicant submitted that the respondent, being fully aware of the terms of the order, has acted in ways which involved breaching the order, and knew all the facts which made his conduct a breach. Whether he believed that he was breaching the order or not was irrelevant.