committal meaning

This Procedural Guide Sets out the process under the Debtors Act 1869 (DA 1869), the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, Pt 33, and the Administration of Justice Act 1970 (AJA 1970) for applying for a judgment summons compelling a debtor to attend court where the debtor has, or has had since the date of the order or judgment, the means to meet the defaulted amount, yet refuses or neglects to do so. It provides guidance on eligibility to apply, the criminal standard of proof and evidential requirements, and the debtor’s committal. A judgment summons is a summons that requires a debtor to appear before the court. If it is proved to the court’s satisfaction that the debtor has, or has had since the order or judgment, the means to pay the sum in default, and has refused or neglected, or refuses or neglects, to pay it, the debtor may be committed to prison for up to six weeks, or until prior payment of the amount owing....

Andrew Scott KC of Blackstone Chambers, counsel for BHP Andrew Scott KC said the planned appeal poses the issue of whether seeking anti‑suit relief in a foreign court, linked to proceedings in England, could amount to criminal contempt. Scott told the Court of Appeal that no English authority indicates that it could. BHP has lodged an appeal against a decision by Judge Adam Constable. In June 2025, sitting in the High Court, he held that BHP must confront allegations that it attempted to impede the municipalities’ access to justice in England by supporting proceedings in Brazil’s highest court that might frustrate compensation claims. The municipalities argue that BHP is in contempt of court for agreeing to finance a claim initiated by Ibram, a Brazilian mining association, before the South American country’s Federal Supreme Court in 2024...

In this issue: Disputes and remedies Enfranchisement and right to manage Repairing obligations and dilapidations LexTalk®Property Disputes: a Lexis®Nexis community Additional Property disputes updates Daily and weekly news alerts Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q&A Disputes and remedies Application for an injunction to restrain the sale of properties failed (Matthews v Matthews (a protected party, by his deputy Anne Minihane)) In Matthews v Matthews (a protected party, by his deputy Anne Minihane) [2024] EWHC 2182 (Ch), the Chancery Division refused the claimant’s (R’s) bid for an injunction preventing the disposal of the defendant’s (F’s) properties. F, an elderly individual lacking capacity to manage his property and financial affairs, was represented by an interim deputy (M). R and F were second cousins with a long-standing connection through their farming interests. R had also previously served as F’s health and welfare attorney. To discharge F’s liabilities, M was instructed to sell three plots of agricultural...

Misuse of AI in court and the consequences (Ayinde v Haringey & Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank) R (on the application of Frederick Ayinde) v Haringey London Borough Council; Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank QPSC and another company [2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin) What are the practical implications of this case? This ruling sets out explicit directions for lawyers who deploy AI, so that they remain within their professional obligations. The court also outlined what must happen when practitioners discover that they, their wider team, or their client has misused AI. Generative AI systems, including ChatGPT, are not a dependable source of legal research. They can offer convincing but inaccurate claims, refer to authorities that do not exist and attribute quotations to genuine materials that are not present in those texts. Both the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Bar Standards Board have cautioned against such ‘hallucinations’. Where lawyers nevertheless use generative AI, they owe a professional duty to verify the correctness of any research. That duty equally...

This Practice Note summarises the court’s powers when making a special guardianship order (SGO), including decisions about a child’s surname and any removal from the jurisdiction. It also sets out what becomes of existing orders once an SGO is made and the need to consider whether to make a child arrangements order with contact provisions. Existing orders Making an SGO does not, by itself, end any order made under section 8 of the Children Act 1989 (ChA 1989) (an s 8 order). Before granting an SGO, the court must specifically consider whether any existing s 8 order should be varied or discharged. The governing test is whether it is in the child’s best interests for an existing order to remain operative. If a CAO with contact provisions stays in force and there is an enforcement order, the court must decide whether that enforcement order should be revoked. Where an activity direction exists, the court must also consider whether it ought to be...

Practice Note This Practice Note consists of two strands created to help dispute resolution practitioners remain up to date with developments in case law that affect their field, or which influence civil litigation procedure more generally: selected forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court are highlighted below; see Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 summaries of significant appeal decisions in England and Wales (ie rulings of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and, where appropriate, certain judgments of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Court of Justice of the European Union), and ECtHR, which we have covered; see: Key forthcoming appeal cases—2022 You can navigate this content using the table of contents in the left-hand margin. Alternatively, search this tracker using [CTRL]+[F]. This material is not intended to be a comprehensive register of every appeal or major decision relevant to dispute resolution practitioners. Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 Tort and negligence ...

There is some overlap between the doctrine of res judicata and the Henderson abuse principle, discussed below. Note too that these concepts intersect with the procedural basis for striking out a claim as an abuse of the court’s process under CPR 3.4(2)(b); see below and Practice Note: Strike out for abuse of process (civil) (CPR 3.4(2)(b))—Abuse of process by second proceedings. What is res judicata? A res judicata is a determination made by a judge or tribunal with jurisdiction over the cause of action and the parties, which disposes, with finality, of the matter decided so that those bound by the judgment cannot re-litigate it, save on appeal. Those bound by the ruling remain so unless and until altered on appeal. For further guidance on the purpose of, and when you can establish, a res judicata, see Practice Notes: The doctrine of res judicata Key requirements to establish a res judicata What is Henderson abuse? In a legal context,...

If a monetary order in family proceedings remains unpaid, the judgment creditor may, in those circumstances, seek a judgment summons by applying to the court for enforcement. The process is regulated by the Family Procedure Rules 2010 (FPR 2010), SI 2010/2955, Pt 33, and if the court is persuaded that the debtor has defaulted on a debt and has, or has had since the order, the means to discharge the unpaid amount yet has refused or failed to do so, it may order the debtor’s committal to prison. This sanction applies where default relates to the ordered sum and endures despite the debtor’s means...