Background
The parties, of Nigerian heritage, married and lived in England, where their two children (now aged 21 and 19) were largely schooled. Following a 2021 jurisdiction ruling by HHJ Edward Hess sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, the English court assumed jurisdiction over the divorce and ancillary financial matters. At a final financial remedies hearing in September 2022, the judge found that a Miami condominium (4,034 Island Estates Drive, Aventura, Florida) was jointly owned legally and beneficially by both spouses and made a property adjustment order under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 requiring the husband to transfer his entire interest in that property to the wife within seven days of the order dated 22 September 2022.
Despite the English property covered by the same order being duly transferred, the husband refused to transfer the Miami property and actively resisted enforcement proceedings in Florida. For nearly four years the property remained in joint names, effectively inaccessible to the wife and causing her substantial financial detriment. The wife issued a committal application in April 2025. The court initially adjourned to allow the wife to demonstrate proper service and to assess the practical utility of a contempt finding, given the husband had not set foot in England since the order was made and had not engaged with the English proceedings.
By April 2026 the wife had filed multiple witness statements and produced legal opinions from Nigerian and Floridian lawyers indicating that a contempt finding could assist enforcement in those jurisdictions. The court was satisfied that every reasonable method of personal and indirect service had been attempted and that the husband was beyond reasonable doubt aware of the committal application; his non-attendance was consistent with his longstanding refusal to engage with the English court.
The Court’s Holding
HHJ Hess found the husband in contempt of court, satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that his failure to comply with paragraph 20 of the September 2022 order — the direction to transfer the Miami property — was deliberate and calculated to defeat enforcement. The court rejected any suggestion that the breach was inadvertent or excusable, noting that the husband had taken active steps to resist Florida enforcement proceedings.
Applying the sentencing principles in Hale v Tanner [2000] EWCA Civ 5570, the court weighed the seriousness and deliberateness of the breach against the purpose of the committal: marking the court’s disapproval, encouraging future compliance, and providing clear guidance to courts in Nigeria and Miami. The judge declined to follow the wife’s counsel’s submission for an 18-month term, finding that excessive, and instead imposed a sentence of six months’ immediate imprisonment. Suspension was rejected as pointless given the husband’s total non-compliance and absence of any promise of future compliance.
The court further ordered that, should the husband enter England, he is to be immediately apprehended to serve the sentence subject to any application for release he might make. Costs were assessed summarily at £50,791.50 against the husband, and service of the order was directed by multiple routes to ensure the husband would be made aware of it.
Key Takeaways
- An English court can make — and enforce by committal — a property adjustment order over real property situated abroad (here, Florida) where it has validly assumed jurisdiction over the marriage and financial remedies.
- A respondent who deliberately absents himself from proceedings and ignores personal service attempts is not shielded from a contempt finding; the court will be satisfied by indirect service that he is aware of the application.
- A committal order need not be practically enforceable within England to be legitimate: a finding of contempt can serve the collateral purpose of assisting enforcement proceedings in foreign jurisdictions.
- Suspension of a committal sentence is inappropriate where the contemnor has shown no indication of future compliance; an immediate custodial term better reflects the gravity of deliberate, sustained defiance.
- Summary costs of over £50,000 were awarded against the absent husband, reflecting the wife’s litigation burden caused by his non-compliance.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates the willingness of the English Family Court to use its contempt jurisdiction as a tool with international reach, even when direct enforcement within the jurisdiction is uncertain. For practitioners advising clients with cross-border assets, the case confirms that an English property adjustment order in respect of foreign property carries real teeth: a contempt finding and committal warrant may be deployed strategically to support recognition and enforcement proceedings in the country where the asset is actually located.
The judgment also serves as a reminder that procedural non-engagement by a respondent — including evasion of service — does not defeat the court’s jurisdiction to proceed. Provided the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of proper service by indirect means and of the contempt itself, it will act, issue a public judgment, and leave the committal warrant standing for execution if the contemnor ever steps onto English soil.