Former Spouse Jailed for Six Months for Refusing to Transfer Overseas Property After Divorce

In the Central Family Court Neutral Citation Number [2026] EWFC 159 The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 The Marriage of [APPELLANT] and [RESPONDENT] Ms Rebecca Davies (Counsel instructed by Mitchell Simmonds Solicitors) appeared for the applicant. The respondent neither appeared nor was represented. EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY HHJ EDWARD HESS (SITTING AS A DEPUTY HIGH COURT JUDGE) IN OPEN COURT ON A CONTEMPT APPLICATION ON 23 JUNE 2026 1. I am dealing today with an application for committal by way of contempt which is brought by [APPELLANT] (to whom I will refer to in this judgment as the wife) against [RESPONDENT] (to whom I shall refer to as the husband).

2. The parties were married and they have two children who are now aged 21 and 19. The parties have a background in Nigeria and are of Nigerian heritage; but they lived in England for material times, they had a property in England, and the children were largely at school in England.

3. After a jurisdiction hearing heard by me in the course of 2021, I decided that the English court was the appropriate forum for their divorce and financial remedies to be decided. That decision was not appealed (as far as I am aware, certainly not successfully) and they were in due course divorced in England by an English court order. There were also financial remedy proceedings which I dealt with sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in 2022.

4. The final hearing of the financial remedies proceedings took place in September 2022, and I delivered a lengthy judgment after that hearing and I made a very detailed order. It is not necessary for me to deal with all parts of that judgment and order, but for present purposes I record that I defined a property in Miami as ‘the Miami Property’ (which was 4,034 Island Estates Drive, Aventura, Florida, 33160, United States of America) and I made an order that the husband should transfer all his interest in that property to the wife within 7 days of my order, my order being dated 22 September 2022.

5. I also decided within that judgment that the property was owned jointly, legally and beneficially, by the husband and wife. At paragraph 36 of my judgment I made that finding. I was persuaded that I had the jurisdiction, even though the property was in the United States of America, to make a property adjustment order in favour of the wife, and paragraph 20 of my order contains that. That decision has not been appealed.

6. In the nearly four years since I made that order, I am told and I accept, that the husband has refused to transfer the Miami property to the wife, and not only has he refused but he has also strongly resisted any attempts of enforcement in the courts in Florida.

7. The long and the short of it is that property remains in joint names and, at the moment, the wife has no access to it. It is a valuable property and it is therefore a serious matter that she is not gaining access to utilise it to rent or sell it to raise money for other things, or to use it for her own benefit. This has been a substantial detriment to the wife.

8. The failure of the husband to transfer the property has led to this committal application dated 8 April 2025.

9. When I dealt with the first directions hearing, I invited the wife to pause her application to see whether there was much purpose behind it because: a) the husband had resisted enforcement of my order for assets outside the UK; and b) had not as far as anybody is aware set foot in England since then, so enforcing any committal order would be unlikely to be fruitful. It occurred to me that really enforcement of my order needed to be in Miami for purposes of the Miami property or in Nigeria for the purposes of the lump sum order I also made. (I should also note that there was one English property. I ordered transfer of that property and that has happened). I also decided that it was appropriate for me to hear evidence of attempts to bring to the attention of the respondent this application, so I adjourned the matter generally.

10. It was later restored and eventually came before me on 15 April 2026. I was satisfied that the wife had now provided th evidence I felt had been lacking in terms of attempt to serve the order and the application on the husband, and in relation to the purpose of this action. She thinks it will help her applications for enforcement. I have seen legal opinions from Nigeria and Miami that indicate it might be. I don’t know about that for sure; but I am enthusiastic she may be able to enforce my order.

11. I have read the evidence in the bundle today, particularly the various evidence produced by wife including statements dated 8 April 2025, 30 September 2025, 18 December 2025 and 15 April 2026. I have read all of those together with other supporting material, including evidence of attempts to serve orders on the husband.

12. As a result of that, I am entirely satisfied that every possible attempt has been made to personally serve the application, and that the husband has resisted by a series of measures. But I am also satisfied that by the indirect measures of service contained in various orders, and statements of service, that the husband is beyond any reasonable doubt aware of this application, and the fact he is not here today to defend it is his own decision. I am satisfied he has been properly served and I am satisfied that his non-engagement is consistent with his previous practice, having not played any part in the final hearing. He has decided not to properly engage with English court, and the fact he is not here today is consistent with that behaviour.

13. The wife is represented today by Ms Davies of counsel. I have been greatly assisted by her note, draft order, and submissions.

14. It has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that the husband has failed to comply with paragraph 20 of my order of 22 September 2022 and that he has done that entirely deliberately and entirely with a view to defeating the enforcement of my order.

15. There is therefore a very clear case that the husband is in contempt for breaching my order and I have no doubt reaching that conclusion.

16. It seems he has behaved in such a way that a prison sentence is entirely justified.

17. I have read the submissions of Ms Davies on the length of sentence, and in particular she has helpfully drawn my attention to a number of cases on sentence, in particular case of Hale v Tanner [2000] EWCA Civ 5570 , where the judgment of the Court of Appeal was given by Hale LJ, as she then was.

18. I have to weigh up the seriousness of the breach (I have no doubt it was deliberate and serious) alongside the purpose of this application, what it is trying to achieve. I should only order a reasonable period of imprisonment in all the circumstances.

19. Ms Davies has suggested an 18 months prison sentence. This seems to long for what we are trying to achieve, which is to make clear this court’s disapproval of the husband’s contempt, to encourage him to comply with the order, but also to provide clear guidance to the courts in Nigeria and Miami that the English court regards his behaviour as in contempt. In this context my view is that it is appropriate to order a period of six months imprisonment. I have considered whether that should be suspended. This is sometimes appropriate where somebody was promising to obey the order in the future - that is not the case here. It seems pointless to expect the wife to come back to activate that order when, in light of his behaviour, he has simply ignored my order with no promise of better behaviour in the future.

20. I am therefore going to make 6 months order for immediate imprisonment.

21. If the husband comes to England I would expect him to be immediately apprehended and to serve that sentence subject to any application by him for release from that sentence.

22. In accordance with the court rules, I will have this judgment transcribed and posted publicly so everyone is aware of what I have done today.

23. I will also make an order along the lines Ms Davies has suggested in terms of service; that it should be provided in all the ways at paragraph 6 of that draft order. I am satisfied if all those routes are pursued, he will become aware of this order.

24. I will also make an order for costs assessed in the amount of £50,791.50. HHJ Edward Hess Central Family Court 23 June 2026