Collardeau v Fuchs (Contempt of Court) [2025] EWFC 413 (28 November 2025)

Collardeau v Fuchs (Contempt of Court) [2025] EWFC 413 (28 November 2025)

The Defendant was in contempt of court by selling ML1 in breach of the preservation order, as the order was effectively served by email pursuant to a valid alternative service order, and the Defendant had knowledge of the order and its terms. Any procedural defect in service is waived as no injustice was caused. The prohibition on impeding domestication (paragraph 10) was too widely drawn and cannot found contempt.

Citation
[2025] EWFC 413
Parties
Claimant: Alvina Collardeau; Defendant: Michael Fuchs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Application Within Financial Remedy and Enforcement Proceedings / Judgment on Liability for Contempt; Sentencing Adjourned
Outcome
Defendant found guilty of contempt of court for breach of preservation order; sentencing adjourned.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Service of Orders, Alternative Service, Financial Remedies, Enforcement of Court Orders
Family Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Service of Orders Alternative Service Financial Remedies Enforcement of Court 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 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alvina Collardeau

Claimant

Michael Fuchs

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court Application Within Financial Remedy and Enforcement Proceedings / Judgment on Liability for Contempt; Sentencing Adjourned

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant was in contempt of court for breaching a preservation order by selling property ML1
  2. 2 Whether service of the order by email constituted effective service for contempt proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the prohibition on impeding domestication of the court's orders was ultra vires and could found contempt

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant was in contempt of court by selling ML1 in breach of the preservation order, as the order was effectively served by email pursuant to a valid alternative service order, and the Defendant had knowledge of the order and its terms. Any procedural defect in service is waived as no injustice was caused. The prohibition on impeding domestication (paragraph 10) was too widely drawn and cannot found contempt.

Court Disposition

Defendant found guilty of contempt of court for breach of preservation order; sentencing adjourned.

Orders

  • Sentencing adjourned to a date to be fixed in January or early February 2026 to allow Defendant to establish the effect of payments made and whether the sale of ML1 has disadvantaged the applicant.
  • Judgment to be published on the Judiciary website.