Family Law Hub

Debtors Act 1869

Statute, published: 31/12/1869

Items referring to this

  • Judgment, 18/12/2012, free
  • Case note, 08/01/2013, free
  • The wife sought declarations in relation to 2 properties which she argued were wholly or mainly beneficially owned by the husband, notwithstanding that (i) the legal title to Property 1 was held in the four names of the husband and his family, and there was a signed TR1 declaring that they hold it as tenants in common in equal shares, and (ii) the legal title to Property 2 was in the sole name of the husband's brother. The wife's applications were dismissed. Judgment, 18/03/2014, free
  • The husband was committed to prison for six weeks for non payment of an order for periodical payments made in divorce proceedings between the parties. He was sent to prison because he currently had, in the view of the district judge, both an earning potential and could apply for benefits but chose not to do so. The next day the husband gave notice of appeal to the High Court. He was released on bail. The essential issue that arose on this appeal was whether the reason given by the district judge was a lawful and sufficient basis for committing a maintenance debtor to prison. A person cannot be committed to prison for non-payment of a maintenance order unless the court is satisfied that the payer has, or has had, the means to pay. The district judge said that she could not be sure that the husband had currently an income, or capital, or assets and went on to say that there was "both wilful refusal and culpable neglect”. However, the High Court ruled that this was not a sufficient, justifiable or lawful basis for imprisoning anybody and the committal order was discharged. Judgment, 27/11/2013, free
  • Application to strike out the F's committal application issued against members of the M's family who had given undertakings that they would assist in the search for the child who had been abducted by the M. Judgment, 18/07/2013, free
  • Judgment, 05/11/2012, free
  • Case note, 14/11/2012, free
  • Case note, 19/10/2011, members only
  • Application by a former wife for general enforcement of an order made by Charles J in May 2005 Judgment, 17/03/2016, free
  • Wife's application for a judgment summons against the husband in respect of £2,200 of arrears of child periodical payments and £5,500 in respect of an unpaid costs order. A suspended sentence was imposed. Judgment, 06/05/2016, free
  • An appeal from an order dismissing the wife's endeavour to rely on documents and statements made by the husband during the course of complex proceedings to enforce a financial remedy order in the wife's favour. Case note, 15/08/2013, members only
  • An appeal from an order dismissing the wife's endeavour to rely on documents and statements made by the husband during the course of complex proceedings to enforce a financial remedy order in the wife's favour. Judgment, 23/05/2013, free
  • Appeal by husband against a suspended committal order, variation order and order for costs. The committal order was set aside due to procedural errors, the costs order falling with it, but the appeal against the variation order failed. Judgment, 11/08/2016, free
  • Suspended prison sentence was imposed on Mr Prest for failing to pay sums due by way of periodical payments. Judgment, 23/10/2014, free
  • Mr Justice Moylan refuses H’s request to adjourn W’s judgment summons proceedings (where she sought committal for non-payment of maintenance – H claimed he was too unwell to attend) on the grounds that if H was well enough to travel to America on holiday with the children for three weeks plus, he was well enough to attend court. Judgment, 18/11/2014, free
  • In brief: A successful application by a wife (“W”) for a judgment summons against her ex-husband (“H”). Having failed to pay the spousal maintenance ordered, arrears of £55,000 had accrued (by the time of the hearing, they had risen to £87,000). The court was satisfied that H has, or had had, the means to pay the maintenance but had instead prioritised other expenditure (including over £72,000 on two weddings to his new wife) and in doing so had deliberately and wilfully refused or neglected to pay the sum owed to W. Judgment, 02/10/2018, free
  • Judgment, 03/02/2012, free
  • Case note, 08/01/2013, free
  • Judgment, 29/01/2013, free

Published: 31/12/1869


Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.


The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item