LJ v JD

LJ v JD

The Respondent committed three breaches of undertakings by attending the Applicant's property and making abusive and intimidating phone calls, as proved to the criminal standard. The breaches, though mitigated by context and lack of ongoing threat, constitute a serious attack on the integrity of the court's jurisdiction and warrant a custodial sentence, suspended due to personal circumstances and the interests of the child.

Parties
Applicant: LJ; Respondent: JD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court (family) / Judgment and Sentencing
Outcome
Three breaches of undertaking proved; custodial sentence imposed and suspended.
Legal Topics
Breach of Undertaking, Non Molestation, Committal Proceedings
Family Law Contempt of Court Breach of Undertaking Non Molestation Committal Proceedings

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LJ

Applicant

JD

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court (family) / Judgment and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent breached undertakings given to the court
  2. 2 Whether the breaches are proved to the criminal standard
  3. 3 Appropriate sanction for breach of court undertakings

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondent committed three breaches of undertakings by attending the Applicant's property and making abusive and intimidating phone calls, as proved to the criminal standard. The breaches, though mitigated by context and lack of ongoing threat, constitute a serious attack on the integrity of the court's jurisdiction and warrant a custodial sentence, suspended due to personal circumstances and the interests of the child.

Court Disposition

Three breaches of undertaking proved; custodial sentence imposed and suspended.

Orders

  • Fourteen days imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, suspended.
  • Order under Section 42 of the Family Law Act 1996 in the same terms as the original undertaking.