BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> Ozturk v Ozturk (Reissue 2) [2025] EWFC 162 (B) (08 May 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2025/162.html
Cite as: [2025] EWFC 162 (B)

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

WARNING:   This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

 

Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWFC 162 (B)

Ref. 1720-6859-7363-6439

IN THE FAMILY COURT

AT MIDDLESBROUGH (SITTING AT TEESSIDE)

Russell Street Middlesbrough

 

Date: 8th MAY 2025

Before:

 

HER HONOUR JUDGE MORETON

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

IN THE MATTER OF

OZTURK

Applicant

 

-v-

 

OZTURK

 

Respondent

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

MR SPROSTON appeared on behalf of the Applicant

THE RESPONDENT appeared in person

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENT (AS APPROVED) Reissue 2


JUDGE MORETON:

  1. The court is dealing with an application for notice to show cause as to why the respondent husband to the substantive application for financial remedy should not be committed to prison for breach of a court order of 8th October 2024.
  2. The application for contempt that has been made is dated 20th December 2024 and that is supported by a sworn statement in support by the applicant wife of the same date.
  3. Specifically, it is alleged that Mr Ozturk has failed to comply with para 6(a) of the order of 8th October 2024 and I will come back to the specific wording of the breach in due course.
  4. But in terms of the hearing today, that being the hearing to consider whether or not the alleged breach is made out and any consequential orders that may flow from that, the order listing the matter for hearing today is dated 28th April 2025 and I have evidence before me - a statement of service from a process server of 30th April 2025 - that that notice of hearing by way of that order of 28th April 2025 was personally served upon the respondent husband on 29th April 2025 in addition to all the other documentation relevant to this application including the application itself, the affidavit in support, the order of 8th October 2024 and the statement of service of that order dated 15th October 2024. I am therefore satisfied that the respondent husband, Mr Ozturk, has been served with notice of the application, the evidence in support and the notice of the hearing today.
  5. Mr Ozturk has not attended court today. The court has put out two tannoys for his attendance. Mrs Ozturk herself has advised that she is not aware or seen him in the court building and further efforts have been made, as far as is practically possible, to establish through the security at court as to whether or not he may be outside the court building or anywhere else in the building as is sometimes the case and, again, the court has been advised that he cannot be found. I am therefore satisfied that he is not present in court, but I am satisfied that he does have notice of this hearing and consequently he has failed to attend court and that has been a deliberate and conscious decision on his part. The court has received no messages as to the fact that he is delayed or is in difficulty in attending. I am therefore satisfied that it is appropriate for the court to proceed to deal with the application in his absence and I do so.
  6. Turning, therefore, to the application for contempt in itself. The paragraph which is alleged to have been breached is that of para.6 of the order of 8th October 2024 namely that the respondent husband, Mr Ozturk, must file and serve upon the applicant's solicitors a complete signed copy of his Form E together with all relevant attachments and accompanying documents, by 4pm on the date 28 days after the date on which he is personally served with this order. A penal notice at para.6(b) was attached to that order.
  7. Mr Ozturk was personally served with that order by a process server on 15th October 2024 and a statement of service by the process server has been filed at court confirming the same dated also 15th October 2024. I am therefore satisfied that Mr Ozturk has received that court order and therefore will be aware of the requirement for him to file his Form E.
  8. By virtue of the fact that he was personally served with that order on 15th October 2024, Mr Ozturk was due to file the Form E and accompanying documentation no later than 12th November 2024. Neither the court nor the applicant's solicitors have received any such Form E and/or accompanying documentation and I am therefore satisfied that Mr Ozturk has not complied with para.6 of the order of 8th October 2024 and, consequently, he is in breach of the same. I therefore find that breach proved.
  9. Furthermore, I take into consideration the contents of Mrs Ozturk's statement in support dated 20th September 2024 and I note, in particular, that Mr Ozturk did not complete the acknowledgment of service required in response to the issue of the application for divorce and that required him to be personally served with the court documentation to enable those proceedings to progress.
  10. Mr Ozturk then did not engage with attempts by the applicant's solicitors to resolve financial remedy matters by negotiation and agreement outside of the court arena and that led to the necessity for financial remedy proceedings having to be issued.
  11. As is the norm, a Form C was issued by the court following the issue of the financial remedy proceedings. Those are standard directions for parties to comply with in readiness for a First Directions Appointment and that includes the requirement for both parties to file Form Es. In this case, the parties were required to file Form Es no later than 3rd September 2024 and, again, Mr Ozturk did not comply.
  12. Mr Ozturk did not attend the First Directions Appointment listed on 8th October 2024 and it is as a consequence of that that the order of that date was made, in particular para.6, and that a penal notice was attached to that order.
  13. As I have established, Mr Ozturk has not complied with that provision. Furthermore, he has not attended at the adjourned First Directions Appointment which took place on 17th December 2024 and I also note that the applicant wife states in her statement that Mr Ozturk has told her and their son directly that he has no intention of engaging with these proceedings and indeed that is supported by his actions from the very outset of the application for divorce.
  14. I am therefore satisfied that these are wilful and repeated breaches by Mr Ozturk in relation to court orders and directions and that he has consciously and deliberately failed to engage with the proceedings and in all likelihood will not do so going forward.
  15. I take all of these factors into consideration when considering what punishment the court should apply in relation to the breach that I have found proved and I am satisfied that taking Mr Ozturk's approach to the proceedings into consideration that a custodial sentence is justified and indeed required, albeit I take the view that at this stage this should be a sentence that is suspended and I adopt that position partly because I am conscious that if he were to be committed to prison directly then this in itself has the potential to delay matters as he would not be available to complete and file a Form E with all the necessary attachments/documentary evidence in support, as stipulated in the Form E itself. It is his final opportunity to demonstrate compliance with the court order.
  16. I therefore sentence Mr Ozturk to 28 days imprisonment suspended upon compliance with my order today that he file a Form E within 28 days of service of this order upon him.
  17. A transcript of this judgment should be obtained forthwith at public expense and I make it clear within this judgment that Mr Ozturk is on notice that, given the nature of the sentence I have imposed, there is no requirement for him to seek permission to appeal this order and that, should he be minded to do so, he can make an application without any such permission being requested or obtained.
  18. Given the judgment that I have made and my assessment of Mr Ozturk's approach to these proceedings, I am satisfied that costs should follow the events. I have considered the cost schedule. I am satisfied that it is a proportionate schedule and I make an award that Mr Ozturk should pay the costs of this application summarily assessed in the sum of £2,210.40 and that payment should be made within 14 days.
  19. That concludes my judgment in relation to the committal proceedings.
About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010