Thursfield v Thursfield (Rev 1) [2013] EWCA Civ 840 (20 June 2013)

Thursfield v Thursfield (Rev 1) [2013] EWCA Civ 840 (20 June 2013)

The committal sentence of 24 months was justified given the seriousness, persistence, and deliberateness of the breaches; the judge correctly distinguished between punitive and coercive elements; refusal to adjourn was proper as the Michigan appeal did not eliminate liability and the disclosure order remained relevant.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Civ 840
Parties
Appellant/defendant: David William Thursfield; Respondent/claimant: Linda Jane Thursfield
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Committal Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Freezing Orders, Disclosure Orders, Committal Proceedings
Civil Procedure Family Law Enforcement of Judgments Contempt of Court Freezing Orders Disclosure Orders Committal Proceedings

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David William Thursfield

Appellant/defendant

Linda Jane Thursfield

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Committal Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the committal sentence for contempt was manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in refusing to adjourn the committal hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The committal sentence of 24 months was justified given the seriousness, persistence, and deliberateness of the breaches; the judge correctly distinguished between punitive and coercive elements; refusal to adjourn was proper as the Michigan appeal did not eliminate liability and the disclosure order remained relevant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; committal order for 24 months stands