Rundell v Rundell [2005] EWCA Civ 1764 (14 December 2005)

Rundell v Rundell [2005] EWCA Civ 1764 (14 December 2005)

The judge's conduct of the proceedings did not breach the debtor's Article 6 rights. The enforcement process was fair, the arrears were properly established, and the debtor was not improperly compelled to give evidence. Technical criticisms did not undermine the validity of the suspended committal order.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 1764
Parties
Defendant/applicant: David William Rundell; Claimant/respondent: Kathleen Elizabeth Rundell
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal Against Suspended Committal Order From County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Maintenance Orders, Judgment Summons Procedure, Article 6 ECHR, Standard of Proof in Quasi Criminal Proceedings, Self Incrimination Protections
Family Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Judgment Summons Procedure Article 6 ECHR Standard of Proof in Quasi Criminal Proceedings Self Incrimination Protections

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David William Rundell

Defendant/applicant

Kathleen Elizabeth Rundell

Claimant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal Against Suspended Committal Order From County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the debtor's Article 6 rights under the Human Rights Convention were breached in the judgment summons enforcement proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to apply the criminal standard of proof
  3. 3 Whether the debtor was improperly compelled to give evidence or inadequately warned against self-incrimination

Ratio Decidendi

The judge's conduct of the proceedings did not breach the debtor's Article 6 rights. The enforcement process was fair, the arrears were properly established, and the debtor was not improperly compelled to give evidence. Technical criticisms did not undermine the validity of the suspended committal order.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Costs to the respondent in the agreed sum of £4,306.38