De Montford v McKenzie

De Montford v McKenzie

The appeal was dismissed because the procedural requirements were substantially met, the respondent was not prejudiced or taken by surprise, and the trial judge's findings of fact and penalties were justified and appropriate.

Parties
Applicant/respondent: Angela De Montford; Respondent/appellant: Raymond McKenzie
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 August 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Committal Orders for Breach of Undertakings
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Breach of Undertakings, Procedural Fairness
Family Law Civil Procedure Committal for Contempt Breach of Undertakings Procedural Fairness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Angela De Montford

Applicant/respondent

Raymond McKenzie

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Committal Orders for Breach of Undertakings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the committal proceedings complied with procedural requirements under Order 29 of the County Court Rules
  2. 2 Whether the findings of fact by the trial judge were justified
  3. 3 Whether the penalties imposed were appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the procedural requirements were substantially met, the respondent was not prejudiced or taken by surprise, and the trial judge's findings of fact and penalties were justified and appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Suspended committal orders and additional injunctions against Mr McKenzie remain in force
  • No criticism of the penalties or additional injunctions imposed by the trial judge