In AB v CD [2024] EWHC 2521 (Fam), the High Court tackled a complex and challenging situation involving the enforcement of child arrangement orders across international borders. The case sheds light on how courts use sequestration orders—a powerful legal tool—to enforce compliance and fund essential legal actions, particularly in family law disputes that cross jurisdictions.

Background: The Child Arrangements Dispute

The case centred around a child, EF, who was wrongfully taken abroad by her father, CD, despite a UK court order stating that she should live with her mother, AB. In April 2023, the court ruled that EF would reside with AB. However, during a trip to Florida, CD violated this order by taking EF out of the UK and failing to return her as required. AB was then forced to seek a court order to bring her daughter back, sparking a legal battle that crossed international borders, including the need for legal action in Dubai.

Key Legal Issues at Play

1. Sequestration Orders and Funding Legal Action:
   • AB asked the court to allow the sale of CD’s UK property to fund her legal efforts to enforce the child arrangements order in Dubai. The court explored the history and modern application of sequestration orders, which traditionally compel compliance with court orders but, in this case, were sought to generate funds for international litigation.
2. Contempt of Court:
   • CD was found in contempt for failing to comply with the court order to return EF. He was sentenced to 12 months in prison, suspended for 28 days, giving him the opportunity to return the child and avoid incarceration. As CD failed to comply, he faces arrest and imprisonment should he return to the UK.
3. Jurisdictional Reach and Modern Enforcement Powers:
   • The court discussed how sequestration orders, once primarily aimed at enforcing financial obligations, have evolved under the Family Procedure Rules (FPR) and Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) to address more complex family law enforcement issues, including the confiscation of assets to fund necessary litigation arising from non-compliance.
4. Procedural Considerations for Contempt and Confiscation:
   • The court highlighted the importance of adhering to strict procedural rules when pursuing contempt actions. Proper notification of the person in contempt is crucial, and confiscation orders can only follow a formal finding of contempt. The court emphasised that without a clear procedural pathway, such as fresh contempt proceedings, AB’s request to sell CD’s property could not proceed.

Court’s Decision: Finding a Path Forward

The court acknowledged the merit in AB’s application but ultimately concluded that under the current procedural framework, it lacked the authority to grant a sequestration order for the sale of CD’s property. The judge suggested that AB could initiate fresh contempt proceedings, which would enable the court to issue a confiscation order and allow the sale of the property to fund her legal costs.

Past cases like Richardson v Richardson and Mir v Mir were referenced to illustrate similar legal issues regarding the enforcement of court orders through sequestration.

Implications and Next Steps

This case highlights the difficulties involved in enforcing international child arrangements orders and the creative use of sequestration to meet these challenges. The court’s decision offers AB a potential legal pathway by initiating fresh contempt proceedings, which could lead to a confiscation order and allow her to fund her legal fight in Dubai to secure EF’s return.

Key Takeaways for Family Law Practitioners:

1. Sequestration as a Versatile Enforcement Tool: While sequestration orders are traditionally used to enforce financial obligations, this case demonstrates their potential use in funding litigation when court orders are disregarded.
2. Strict Adherence to Contempt Procedures: Practitioners must ensure that all procedural requirements are met in contempt applications, including providing proper notice to the person in contempt. Without these steps, applications risk being dismissed.
3. Evolving Jurisdictional Powers: Courts now have broader powers under the FPR and CPR to confiscate assets in family law disputes, reflecting a modern approach to enforcing compliance with court orders, especially in international cases.
4. Cross-Border Enforcement: The case underscores the complexity of enforcing child arrangements orders across jurisdictions and the importance of innovative legal strategies to secure compliance in foreign countries.
5. Fresh Legal Pathways for Enforcement: The court’s guidance on pursuing fresh contempt proceedings provides a clear roadmap for future legal actions in cases where sequestration orders are sought to fund international litigation.

Conclusion

The decision in AB v CD [2024] EWHC 2521 (Fam) highlights the court's adaptability in using traditional legal remedies, like sequestration, in new and creative ways to address the growing challenges of international family law disputes. The case provides valuable insights into the evolving nature of enforcement mechanisms and the importance of procedural precision in contempt and confiscation applications. For family law practitioners, understanding these evolving tools is critical to securing compliance in increasingly complex international cases.