H v Dent & Ors

H v Dent & Ors

The committal applications were fundamentally and incurably defective for failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements, lacked particularity, were unsupported by credible evidence, and disclosed no reasonable grounds; they constituted an abuse of process and were struck out. No defendant was in contempt or had breached any court order.

Parties
Applicant: H; First Respondent: Jason Dent; Second Respondent: Billie McKay; Third Respondent: Terri Harman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Committal Application (family Division) / Permission/strike Out Hearing
Outcome
Applications struck out; permission to proceed refused; application against First Defendant withdrawn with permission; no findings of contempt.
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Procedural Defects, Abuse of Process, Children Act 1989, Family Procedure Rules 2010
Family Law Civil Procedure Committal for Contempt Procedural Defects Abuse of Process Children Act 1989 Family Procedure Rules 2010

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H

Applicant

Jason Dent

First Respondent

Billie McKay

Second Respondent

Terri Harman

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Committal Application (family Division) / Permission/strike Out Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the committal applications against the three defendants should proceed to a full hearing or be struck out as an abuse of process; whether the applications comply with procedural requirements under the Family Procedure Rules 2010; whether there is a prima facie case of contempt against any defendant; whether the applications disclose reasonable grounds or are an abuse of the court's process

Ratio Decidendi

The committal applications were fundamentally and incurably defective for failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements, lacked particularity, were unsupported by credible evidence, and disclosed no reasonable grounds; they constituted an abuse of process and were struck out. No defendant was in contempt or had breached any court order.

Court Disposition

Applications struck out; permission to proceed refused; application against First Defendant withdrawn with permission; no findings of contempt.

Orders

  • Committal applications against Second and Third Defendants struck out as an abuse of process and for procedural defects.
  • Permission to proceed with committal applications refused.