Hollie Louise Totton v Mark David Totton (as beneficiary and executor of the Estate of Hazel Margaret Totton, Deceased)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Leech |
| Judgment Date | 07 October 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 2916 (Ch) |
| Docket Number | Case No: PT-2021-000360 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
[2022] EWHC 2916 (Ch)
Mr Justice Leech
Case No: PT-2021-000360
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
CHANCERY DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Ms T Adams appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Mr S Gokhool (Solicitor) (of SG Law Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
APPROVED JUDGMENT
By application notice dated 5 July 2022 (the “ Committal Application”) the Applicants, Hollie Louise Totton and Daniel Robert Washer, applied for an order for committal for contempt of the Respondent, Mr Mark David Totton.
On 31 August 2022 I heard the Committal Application in the absence of the Respondent and delivered an ex tempore judgment. I held that it was appropriate to hear the application in his absence. I also found that the Respondent was in contempt of court in that he had breached, and remained in breach of, paragraph 7 of the order of Meade J dated 10 March 2022 (as amended on 29 April 2022) (the “ Order”) by failing to comply with its terms by 7 May 2022 and that he had breached, and remained in breach of, paragraph 9 of the Order by failing to comply with its terms by 21 May 2022. I made an order for the Committal Application to be relisted on 12 September 2022 and on 13 September 2022 I issued a bench warrant for the attendance of the Respondent.
On 15 September 2022 I heard the adjourned Committal Application and this time the Respondent was present. I made an order for him to be committed to prison for 3 months but that the sentence was not to begin until Monday, 10 October 2022. I made that Order to give him an opportunity to purge his contempt and comply with his obligations to the Applicants. I relisted the Committal Application for further hearing today.
On 6 October 2022 the Respondent made an affidavit in compliance (so far as possible) with the Order. He gave evidence that the principal asset of his mother's estate, her home, was sold on 19 March 2020 for £425,000 and he exhibited the contract and completion statement and probate schedule. These documents showed that, apart from the property itself, his mother's estate consisted of stocks, shares, bank and building society accounts and premium bonds totalling (by my calculation) £48,321 and liabilities of £18,016.
In paragraph 30 of his affidavit the Respondent stated that he had given an account of his dealings with the estate from March 2020 onwards to his solicitor, although he had been advised not to divulge any further details about those dealings because it would, or might, incriminate him.
In a case called Alokaili v Chohan [2022] EWHC 2043 (Ch) HHJ Keyser QC had made an order for committal but also ordered that it was not to commence until a specific date in the future. He also relisted the committal application for a further hearing. When it came before me, I treated it as an application by the Respondent to purge his contempt under CPR Part 81.10(1). Further, because the Applicants contended that the Respondent remained in breach of the relevant order whilst he claimed to have complied with it, I accepted counsel's submission that it was for the Applicants to prove to the requisite standard that the Respondent remained in contempt of the original order. I...
To continue reading
Request your trial