Prest v Prest

Prest v Prest

The appeal was dismissed because the judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing an adjournment, applied the correct criminal standard and burden of proof, did not improperly rely on prior civil findings, correctly limited credit for non-order payments, and was entitled to impose the penalty given the husband's wilful default and means to pay.

Parties
Appellant/husband: Michael Jenseabla Prest; Respondent/wife: Yasmin Prest
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (family/enforcement) / Appeal From High Court (family Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Maintenance Orders, Committal for Non Payment, Debtors Act 1869, Standard of Proof in Committal Proceedings, Adjournment Applications, Variation of Maintenance Orders
Family Law Civil Procedure Enforcement Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Committal for Non Payment Debtors Act 1869 Standard of Proof in Committal Proceedings Adjournment Applications +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Jenseabla Prest

Appellant/husband

Yasmin Prest

Respondent/wife

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (family/enforcement) / Appeal From High Court (family Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to adjourn the committal hearing breached the husband's right to a fair trial
  2. 2 Whether the judge applied the correct standard and burden of proof in committal proceedings under the Debtors Act 1869
  3. 3 Whether the judge improperly relied on previous findings made to the civil standard in a criminal-standard process

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing an adjournment, applied the correct criminal standard and burden of proof, did not improperly rely on prior civil findings, correctly limited credit for non-order payments, and was entitled to impose the penalty given the husband's wilful default and means to pay.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The order for committal (four weeks' imprisonment, suspended) stands, with the suspension period extended to 28 September 2015, conditional on payment of £360,200 by 4 pm on that date.