Maintenance arrears of £1 million. Surely that warrants a jail sentence?

Earlier this year newspaper headlines focussed on the plight of Michelle Young, ex –wife to Scott Young, a former “fixer” for British businessmen.  Their divorce proceedings commenced in 2006 and have become a long drawn out and bitter battle.

The Young case has run for several years now and the scope of this article is not to rehearse at length all the facts.  In essence, there were various court orders made during 2008 and 2009 for Mr Young to make full disclosure of his financial position.  He repeatedly failed to provide that disclosure and in the end a committal summons was issued by the Wife.  On 29th June 2009, Mrs Justice Parker committed the husband to prison for six months for contempt of previous court orders but she suspended the term of imprisonment for 92 days on terms that the husband provide the answers and documents sought by 7th September. The husband purported to provide disclosure in November 2009 although the wife’s team argued that it was not full and frank and did not “purge” his contempt.

In December 2009 Mr Young was ordered by Mrs Justice Black to pay maintenance pending suit of £27,500 per month to his ex-wife in order for her to pay rent and school fees for their daughters.  Mr Young did not appeal that order but he paid nothing (or next to nothing) pursuant to that obligation.

Matters ran on and Mrs Young experienced problems raising funds to pay her lawyers so there was a dip in activity in the case for some time.  However, in 2012 Mrs Young applied to the court to adjourn the final hearing which was listed for October that year. Orders were made with a deadline for Mr Young to comply by 10th December. A Penal Notice was attached to the relevant paragraphs of the order and the judge made it very clear to him in court that the situation was serious and that if he did not comply, there would be an application to send him to prison for contempt.

In a similar vein to what had gone before, Mr Young did not comply.  By the time the court heard the committal application in January 2013 the arrears were close to £1 million.

In his defence, Mr Young argued that he was penniless and bankrupt. Mrs Young’s legal team argued that he was a very wealthy man worth up to £400 million and he had taken deliberate steps to hide his resources to avoid his legitimate obligations towards her and the children

Mr Justice Moor heard the committal proceedings on 15th and 16th January 2013 and the judgement makes interesting reading. The judge considered that the contempt was so serious that a fine could not be justified and moreover, as a punishment it would be ”useless” as he was satisfied Mr Young would not pay it .

The judge also considered a suspended sentence but felt that could not be justified either as there had previously been a suspended sentence to enable him to comply with orders but Mr Young had not done so .

The judge held that Mr Young had had plenty of opportunities to arrange funding for legal representation and in any event, he held the view that there was nothing that a lawyer could say to change the outcome of the case. “There had been a flagrant and deliberate contempt over a very long period of time.”

Mr Young raised his  ill-health and said a term of imprisonment was inappropriate on that basis. Again the judge rejected  it as a reason for not passing an immediate custodial sentence.

When deciding how long the sentence should be, the judge referred back to the 2009 order made by Mrs Justice Parker when she imposed a sentence of six months in prison, which was not appealed. As Mr Young was being sentenced, in effect ,for the same contempt, the same length of sentence was imposed . The sentence was therefore for six months and Mr Young was told he would have to serve one half of the sentence in custody.

The judgement ends with the following missive from the judge:

“..you have brought this entirely upon yourself. You have had more than sufficient opportunity to comply with the various court orders. The court cannot go on giving further opportunities indefinitely.”

Family court judges frequently see efforts to evade court orders for disclosure of financial information.  They are used to having to attach penal orders and threaten prison as a way to cajole those disinclined to work within the system, yet rarely does this actually result in a term of imprisonment.  The Young case is clearly an extreme case but it serves as a useful reminder that the family court does have teeth and all efforts are made to ensure “the truth will out”.

If you have any queries about this article please contact jonesnickolds on 0203 405 2300 or contact@jonesnickolds.co.uk