CA-2025-001272 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1048

In this rather unusual case, the father issued an appellant’s notice seeking permission to appeal the judge’s order by which she had made no order on the application for an order of committal. Permission to appeal was granted by Peter Jackson LJ on 2 July 2025 and the matter was set down for an urgent hearing.

The Grounds of Appeal can be summarised in the following way; it is submitted that the judge’s reasoning was deficient and failed to engage with or comply with the core purpose of contempt proceedings namely, to uphold the authority and the effective functioning of the court.

The sentencing judgment, Ms Momoh says on behalf of the father, reflects a mischaracterisation of the law of contempt by treating it as a matter of individual compliance rather than as a mechanism to protect the administration of justice. Ms Momoh submits that the court erred in law by treating likely future noncompliance as a reason not to impose punishment and in doing so undermined the authority ofcourt orders and the purpose of contempt proceedings as affirmed in Hale v Tanner [2021] WLR 2377 and Elkndo v Elsyed . The judgment it was submitted, wrongly treated the aims of committal, punishment and securing compliance as interdependent concluding that the unlikelihood of future compliance rendered any sanction purposeless. Insufficient weight she said, was given to the deterrent effect of an appropriate sanction both on the contemnor and more broadly.

Ms Momoh submitted in relation to the facts of the case that the seriousness and repeated nature of the contempt, including the ineffectiveness of previous fines, was not adequately addressed and further that a finding that future compliance is unlikely does not absolve the court of its obligation to mark past breaches with a proportionate sanction. Finally, it was submitted that the conclusion that a custodial sentence would serve no purpose lacked analysis of the various sentencing options and failed to reflect the escalating pattern of breach. The court’s decision not to impose a sanction, Ms Momoh says, has rendered the court’s previous repeated warning to the mother including on 18 March 2025, as toothless.