Kremen v Agrest [2011] EWCA Civ 1482 (19 October 2011)

Kremen v Agrest [2011] EWCA Civ 1482 (19 October 2011)

Payment out of a court fund by court order does not satisfy the requirements of Section 5 of the Debtors Act 1869 unless it is established that the funds are beneficially owned by the debtor and the debtor himself satisfies the debt; therefore, the committal order should not have been discharged.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 1482
Parties
Appellant: Kremen; Respondent: Agrest
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Principal Registry of the Family Division / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Enforcement of Maintenance Orders, Debtors Act 1869, Beneficial Ownership of Property, Suspended Committal Orders
Family Law Civil Procedure Committal for Contempt Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Debtors Act 1869 Beneficial Ownership of Property Suspended Committal Orders

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

Parties

Kremen

Appellant

Agrest

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From the Principal Registry of the Family Division / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether payment out of a court fund satisfies a debtor's liability under Section 5 of the Debtors Act 1869
  2. 2 Whether the proceeds of sale held by the court can be treated as the debtor's property for the purpose of discharging a committal order
  3. 3 Whether the process before Holman J amounted to an improper review of another judge's order

Ratio Decidendi

Payment out of a court fund by court order does not satisfy the requirements of Section 5 of the Debtors Act 1869 unless it is established that the funds are beneficially owned by the debtor and the debtor himself satisfies the debt; therefore, the committal order should not have been discharged.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Paragraph 1 of Holman J's order set aside; suspended committal order and warrant remain in effect.
  • Directions hearing scheduled for 28 October; trial to commence 12 December before Mostyn J.