Outcome: No orders made on SUM 301.
Facts
1 The trial judge made consequential orders on the matrimonial property and ordered that parties were to have joint conduct of the sale (“the Order”). In SUM 301, Wife applied for a penal notice to be inserted in the Order.
Court’s Decision:
2 Rule 696(4) of the Family Justice Rules 2014 (“FJR”), which sets out the prerequisites to the enforcement of court orders, only requires that the order sought to be enforced be “endorsed with a notice in Form 136 [i.e., the penal notice]”. It does not expressly state that the notice must be endorsed by the court or that the court’s leave is required. Second, parties are expected to comply with court orders, regardless of whether those orders have been endorsed with a penal notice. In other words, the endorsement of a penal notice does not impose any fresh legal obligation on either party. Rather, it only serves to provide notice.: at [11].
3 Since the rationale behind the penal notice is to put a party on notice, there is no reason to require a party to apply to court for the endorsement of a penal notice; an endorsement by a party or his solicitors will have the same effect. Notice is given by the parties; it need not be part of a court order.: at [11].
4 Safeguards already exist: r 759 of the FJR requires an applicant to obtain leave of court before applying for an order of committal. Further, r 763 empowers the court to suspend the execution of a committal order by giving the contemnor a further chance to purge his or her contempt by complying with the order.: at [12].This summary is provided to assist the public to have a better understanding of the Court’s judgment. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s judgment.