Charmaine de Souza v Richard Rothschild & Anor

Rothschild v de Sousa committal Case No: ZC16D00276 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (FAMILY DIVISION) NCN: [2024] EWHC 2234 (Fam) BEFORE: SIR JONATHAN COHEN BETWEEN: Charmaine de Souza Richard Rothschild High Court of Justice Family Division, Queen's Building Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London WC2A 2LL Monday, 5 August 2024 ---------------------- - and - -and- Applicant First Respondent Wanda Radziszewska Second Respondent ---------------------- MS P SANGER (instructed by Brabners solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Applicant THE FIRST RESPONDENT appeared remotely and was not represented THE SECOND RESPONDENT appeared in person and was not represented ---------------------- JUDGMENT (Approved) ---------------------- This judgment was delivered in public. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court. THE JUDGE: Rothschild v de Sousa committal 1. It is a very rare case where a court is asked to imprison a lady in her 80s for contempt of court. But the facts of this case are extraordinary and need to be explained. In December 2019, I delivered judgment in the Financial Remedy proceedings between the applicant and the first respondent following the breakdown of their marriage. I then had to resolve issues about the drafting of the order and that took place following a further hearing on 5 February 2020. 2. The order that I made comprised various transfers of property and the payment of a relatively modest lump sum of £225,000 by Mr Rothschild to Ms de Souza. If that was not paid, then a property in Miami owned by the parties, the husband and the wife, was to be sold and the sum due to Ms de Souza paid out of its proceeds. The property was transferred to Mr Rothschild. I ought to explain that although Mr Rothschild and his mother Ms Radziszewska bear different surnames, they are indeed mother and son, the husband having changed his name by deed poll to Rothschild. In fairness to that well-known family dynasty, Mr Rothschild has no familial relationship with them. 3. To say that the Miami property was the subject of shenanigans would be an understatement. There have been at least two occasions during the proceedings when Mr Rothschild has sought to transfer it to his mother. His mother has even made a claim to the ownership of the property for the sole purpose of trying to remove it from the parties’ asset pool. Whether that was done at her instance or her son's instigation is unknown to me. The matter was determined by Mostyn J, and bizarrely was resuscitated again by Mr Rothschild and his mother even while he was unsuccessfully appealing my order to the Court of Appeal. 4. In the four and a half years since then, not one penny of the lump sum order has been paid to Ms de Souza who has the physical, emotional, and financial burden of looking after the children. I fully accept that she has received what I decided was her fair share of the assets that were dealt with by way of transfer. But she has not received any part of her lump sum. Rothschild v de Sousa committal 5. Amongst the assets that were in the partial ownership of the parties was 45 Addison Gardens. This is a property in which the second respondent has lived for very many years. She and Ms de Souza were the joint mortgagees of the property. Mr Rothschild has no interest in the property. 6. My order included provision that Mr Rothschild and his mother must indemnify Ms de Souza against all expenses in relation to that property, including the liability under the mortgage and the service charge. It had been my hope and intention that Ms de Souza would receive what she was due from Mr Rothschild, but that if he did not pay it would come out of the sale proceeds of the Miami property. In that way, Mr Rothschild's mother would be freed of the litigation between her son and his former wife. 7. Because of the non-payment of the lump sum and the failure to provide the indemnities in respect of Addison Gardens, a committal application was taken out and that came before Peel J. He dealt with it in October 2021, and he found breaches proved against both Mr Rothschild and his mother. He made a suspended order for imprisonment for a total of 12 weeks against Mr Rothschild and 4 weeks against his mother. It is that suspended committal that in part is the subject of the application before me, because Ms de Souza seeks to lift the suspension of that committal order and commit Mr Rothschild and his mother to prison. 8. The sum now due to Ms de Souza from Mr Rothschild has grown by the addition of a series of costs orders, reimbursement of the various sums she has had to pay by reason of the failures to indemnify and interest to over £700,000. 9. What then happened was unpredicted. Mr Rothschild and his mother suggested, and Ms de Souza agreed to swap the property from which the outstanding lump sum was going to be paid. Thus, the provision for sale, which previously had applied to the Miami property was switched to 45 Addison Gardens. This was the subject of an order made by me on 18 January 2022, if I remember rightly, in writing, having received a consent order from the parties. It recited that it was the express plan of Mr Rothschild's mother to vacate the property, and that she and her son were going to Rothschild v de Sousa committal live in Miami in the property there, a luxury property which Ms de Souza thinks, rightly or wrongly, is now worth some $8 million. 10. Whether in truth it was ever their intention to go and live there is far from clear. Neither Mr Rothschild nor his mother has ever done so. Mr Rothschild lies low, either in Dubai or Poland, but occasionally elsewhere. He sets his face against ever appearing in the courts of England and Wales, notwithstanding repeated orders that he do. He is supremely self-confident and completely unrepentant about his breaches of orders for attendance at hearings and his failure to make the ordered payments. His mother remains in the London property, having recently remarried. 11. Inevitably as a result of the manoeuvres which Mr Rothschild and his mother had entered into, orders for sale were made of 45 Addison Gardens. There then followed repeated problems for those trying to sell the property, whether in obtaining access to the property by agents and surveyors, getting information about the leasehold interest in the property, obtaining documents and so on and so forth. Hence, the application for committal in respect of the alleged new breaches, as well as for the lifting of the suspension of the 2021 committal order. 12. I listed the matter for directions which came before me on 15 July 2024. I required the personal attendance of Mr Rothschild, which he chose to ignore, and of his mother, and it is right to say that she has always attended when required to do so. I was particularly anxious to ensure that she was represented. She has been told on countless times that she is entitled to legal aid in respect of committal proceedings, and on 15 July she was represented. She subsequently filed a statement drafted for her by her lawyers. However, for reasons that I have not inquired into, she has now dismissed her solicitors and counsel. 13. For some time, there has been a shadowy appearance in the background of Mr Hall. I say that without any disrespect to him. He has attended today at my direction, and I am grateful for his attendance. I had been told last year by Mr Rothschild that Mr Hall would come in as a purchaser of the property and that he was well-inclined towards Mr Rothschild and his mother. If he came in as a purchaser, there was a prospect that Mr Rothschild’s mother might be able to continue living in the property, Rothschild v de Sousa committal rather than being evicted. But whilst it would have been neat if that solution had eventuated, Mr Hall disappeared from the scene. He told me that he bought another property instead, which is of course entirely a matter for him. In consequence, the court hearings went on. 14. I am not going to say anything more about the sales process, because there are outstanding allegations of breach of orders in relation to it, which are the subject of the new committal application. I have not ruled on them, and I must keep an open mind about them. If they were true, it would reveal a very serious state of affairs, where Ms de Souza was kept out of money that she was entitled to because of the manoeuvres by Mr Rothschild and his mother. But as I say, I have formed no view about whether these new complaints are justified or not. 15. Today, as I say, Mr Hall has attended. He has put some flesh on the bones of his proposal to buy the property at Addison Gardens, and as a result, an order has been agreed between the parties, apart from several small points which I was asked to resolve. The order that the parties have agreed provides a comprehensive agreement, under which Mr Hall will buy the property with monies already deposited with his solicitors, so that Ms de Souza will receive the bulk of the money that she is due within a few days, and the remainder on the earliest of the sale of Addison Gardens, the Greystoke flat, or on the sale of the Miami property, all to happen within the space of a year at the maximum. The application for committal will stand adjourned. 16. I hope very much that all this is achieved swiftly because if it is not, the prospects for all the parties are grim. But that is how the court finds itself in the position today of Mr Rothschild and his mother facing potential imprisonment. It is all because of their manoeuvring in relation to the property in Miami and the property in London. That is all I am going to say at this stage. 5