To Commit or not to Commit
December 4, 2025
Below we bring you a summary written by Eleanor Irons of a recent Financial Remedies Case.
Sandra Ozturk v Yilmaz Ozturk [2025] EWFC 333 (B)
Non-disclosure in Financial Remedy proceedings has varying degrees of ‘punishment’; often committal to prison is seen as a last resort and a counter-productive response with a decreasing likelihood of a party providing documents if resident within His Majesty’s Prison service.
However, in some cases, repeated non-compliance with Court directions leaves a Judge with no other option. The case of Ozturk v Ozturk demonstrates this. On 7th October HHJ Moreton activated a 28 day suspended sentence due to H repeat breaches of court orders to file a Form E.
On 20 December 2024, an application for contempt of court was made alleging that H had failed to file and serve his Form E in breach of an order dated 8 October 2024. A penal notice was attached. The deadline was 28 days after H was personally served with the order: the process server served this on 15 October 2024, meaning the deadline was 12 November 2024.
The husband failed to attend the committal hearing. The court decided it was satisfied that H had been served with the notice of the application, evidence in support and the notice of hearing, given he was personally served by a process server on 30 April 2025. The court attempted to locate him (tannoys) and was satisfied he had failed to attend court deliberately and consciously. The court therefore proceeded in his absence.
The court was satisfied that H had received the court order and was aware of the requirement to file his Form E. The judge decided that breach of the order was proved. Neither the court nor the W’s solicitors received the Form E.
HHJ also considered that H failed to complete the acknowledgment of service in response to the divorce proceedings and did not engage with attempts to resolve financial remedy matters by negotiation, which led to financial remedy proceedings being issued.
H then failed to complete his Form E by the original deadline of 3 September 2024 and failed to attend the first or second FDA. W also put in her statement that husband told her and her son directly that he had no intention to engage.
[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.”
The Court decided that a custodial sentence was justified and required, and therefore H was sentenced to 28 days’ imprisonment suspended upon compliance with the order to file his Form E within 28 days of service of this order upon him. The judge was conscious that immediate committal to prison directly had the potential to delay matters as he would not be in a position to complete and file a Form E with all the necessary attachments/documentary evidence in support. This was a final opportunity to demonstrate compliance with the court order.
Costs order against H: “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. That concludes my judgment in relation to the committal proceedings.”
However despite this, on 7th October 2025 HHJ Moreton activated the suspended prison sentence H to 28 days’ immediate imprisonment for wilful breach of the Form E disclosure order. At the hearing on 7th October H attended the Court and argued that the divorce and finances should be dealt with in Turkey.
H had no satisfactory explanation as to why he was able to understand some of the aspects of the order from 8 May 2025, but not others, he had complied with paying the costs order, nut had not foiled his Form E. H asserted he did not read English; however “he operated a pizza business, at least one shop, that he has owned at least at certain points in time, numerous bank accounts and that in terms of his business, he has held a lease on at least one premises and he was able to explain to me that the lease on one shop had come to an end” [11].
HHJ Moreton found that H regarded the assets as his money not matrimonial assets, being resistant and uncooperative about his financial affairs, and had consciously chosen not to comply with disclosure obligations. On the balance of probabilities, it was found that H understood what was required of him regarding financial disclosure and had wilfully failed to comply placing H in breach of the May order [15].
Although HHJ Moreton gave further consideration as to whether H should be given one further opportunity to comply with the requirement to provide full and frank disclosure, she concluded that she had no confidence that any further suspension of imprisonment would likely result in financial disclosure being forthcoming.
