Szczepanski v Szczepanski
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE CUMMING-BRUCE,LORD JUSTICE STEPHEN BROWN,LORD JUSTICE GRIFFITHS |
| Judgment Date | 19 January 1984 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1984] EWCA Civ J0119-5 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | 84/0012 |
| Date | 19 January 1984 |
[1984] EWCA Civ J0119-5
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL
ON APPEAL FROM THE STOKE ON TRENT COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Allardice)
Royal Courts of Justice
Lord Justice Cumming-Bruce
Lord Justice Griffiths
and
Lord Justice Stephen Brown
84/0012
MR. MICHAEL R. ELSOM (instructed by Messrs Kenneth Wainwright & Co., Stoke on Trent) appeared on behalf of the Appellant/ Respondent.
MR. C.J. COVENEY (instructed by Messrs Brown & Corbishley, Stoke on Trent) appeared on behalf of the Respondent/Petitioner.
I will ask Lord Justice Stephen Brown to deliver the first judgment.
The appellant appeals to this court against an order of His Honour Judge Allardice in the Stoke-on-Trent County Court of 1st November last year when, upon the appellant's admission of contempt of court, the learned judge ordered that he be committed to prison for a period of twelve months.
The short facts giving rise to the appellant's appearance before His Honour Judge Allardice are these: in the course of matrimonial proceedings for dissolution of marriage brought by the wife of the appellant, there was first of all an ex parte application for an injunction to restrain the appellant (the respondent/husband) from assaulting, molesting or interfering with the petitioner wife on 4th August last year, and an injunction in those terms was granted ex parte. The proceedings were then served upon the appellant and on 16th August at a hearing inter partes, the respondent/husband gave the court an undertaking in the terms of the injunction, that is to say not to assault, molest or interfere with the petitioner wife, and the application for the injunction was adjourned generally. However, as a result of the subsequent behaviour of the respondent husband, the petitioner applied on 6th October 1983 to commit the respondent for a breach of that undertaking, and on that occasion the learned judge dealing with the matter restored the injunction which had been granted on 4th August, that is to say in place of the undertaking he granted an injunction. That was on 6th October. It is to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keeber v Keeber
...is not relevant to the case before the court today. 11 The first case in the family jurisdiction, again a decision of this court, is Sczepanski v Sczepanski (1985) FLR 468, in which the wife obtained an injunction to restrain the husband in the non-molestation terms, and the husband committ......
-
Barnet London Borough Council v Hurst
...first. Before the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force the position emerged clearly from a series of decisions in this court: Szczepanski v Szczepanski [1985] FLR 468; H v C [1993] 1 FLR 787; and Keeber v Keeber [1995] 2 FLR 748. From these authorities the following principles can be de......
-
Bell v Tuohy and Others
...not of itself mean that it constitutes civil contempt, nor, indeed, does it mean that it could not constitute civil contempt—see Szczepanski v Szczepanski (1985) 15 Fam Law 120. Indeed, that case shows that a civil court can deal with a contempt where it is appropriate to do so (as the Judg......
-
H v O (Contempt of Court: Sentencing)
...about, a number of other reported cases in the Family Division involving harassment and violence. These are Szczepanski v Szczepanski [1985] FLR 468; George v George [1986] 2 FLR 347; Mesham v Clarke [1989] 1 FLR 370; Goff v Goff [1989] 1 FLR 436; Juby v Miller [1991] 1 FLR 133; N. v N. [19......