Absurd excuses won't wash in court

The decision by a High Court judge to send a man reported to be worth £400m to jail for six months after he disobeyed orders to disclose his financial details to his wife should act as a warning to others that courts are getting tougher on non-disclosure.

The judge, Mr Justice Moor, said 51-year-old Scot Young had been in “flagrant” contempt of court during a long-running High Court battle with his estranged wife, Michelle. He also described Mr Young’s excuses for not complying with court orders as “absurd” and “next to useless”.

The hearing in January was the latest in a legal fight that has been going on for many years. The London couple separated in 2006 and have two daughters. In 2009, Mr Young was ordered to pay Mrs Young maintenance of £27,500 per month. But he said he was bankrupt and could not pay.

Mrs Young had made a claim for financial provision against her husband saying he was worth up to £400m. He maintained that he was “the victim of financial meltdown” and was now “hopelessly insolvent”.

Suspended sentence

Over a five-year period, Mr Young repeatedly failed to comply with his financial disclosure obligations by providing documents to verify his alleged financial losses.

In 2009, a judge told him that he was in contempt of court, and he was committed to prison for six months. However, the sentence was suspended on condition that he complied with his commitments. He eventually served documents but they were deemed inadequate and insufficient.

After several court hearings over the next three years, the court made a further order in November 2012 that the husband should provide financial disclosure. The November order also contained a penal notice, warning that disobedience would be a contempt of court punishable by imprisonment.

The husband did not comply with the order by the deadline so Mrs Young applied for him to be committed to prison for contempt of court. The case was heard in the High Court in January 2013.

Hidden assets

Mrs Young said Mr Young had hidden assets and had been described as a property tycoon worth £400m. Her lawyers told the judge in the latest hearing that her husband was deliberately not cooperating; Mr Young said she had a malicious motive and he asked for more time.

The case was ruled in favour of Mrs Young. Mr Justice Moor said there was no doubt that her husband was in contempt of court by not complying with the November order. He added that neither a fine nor a suspended sentence would be a sufficient penalty.

The jailing of errant husband Scott Young for contempt of court should serve as a warning to spouses that the courts, which for so long have sat back in the face of wilful lack of cooperation, may be getting tougher.

Mr Justice Moor is one of the new breed of no-nonsense Family Division judges. He has made it plain that feeble excuses will not wash, and the penalty for not cooperating fully may be more serious than a verbal rap across the knuckles or even a fine or costs order against the guilty party.

It remains to be seen whether a fairly brief spell in prison will persuade Mr Young to produce what numerous more commonplace orders of the court have failed to achieve.