Thursfield v Thursfield (Rev 1)

Thursfield v Thursfield (Rev 1)

The judge was entitled to impose the statutory maximum sentence for contempt due to persistent, deliberate, and continuing breaches of the disclosure order, aggravated by the defendant's absence and failure to comply; there was no error of principle or manifest excess in the sentence.

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 Against Committal Order for Contempt
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Freezing Orders, Disclosure Orders, Committal Proceedings
Civil Procedure Family Law Enforcement of Foreign 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 Against Committal Order for Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to adjourn the committal hearing was proper
  2. 2 Whether the 24-month sentence for contempt was manifestly excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to impose the statutory maximum sentence for contempt due to persistent, deliberate, and continuing breaches of the disclosure order, aggravated by the defendant's absence and failure to comply; there was no error of principle or manifest excess in the sentence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against committal order dismissed
  • Committal order for 24 months imprisonment stands