"19. All the way through, by his glib presentation, he has secured adjournments or orders which he thought he could simply ignore. Well, the time has come to put an end to his disrespectful approach to a court of law. Courts are not toothless bodies. They make orders in order to regulate positions between human being so that society may work in a proper fashion."
"One crucial factor in determining whether to issue a judgement summons is the ability to pay. If there are any doubts surrounding the defendant’s ability to do so, the order will not be made. In addition, with imprisonment as a possible penalty, judgment summonses effectively tiptoe across the floor from civil into criminal law. A criminal standard of proof is required – ie ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ – rather than the civil standard, ‘on the balance of probabilities’.
This was established in the case Aaliya Murbarak v (1) Iqubal Murbarak (2) Mohammed Hussain Wani (3) Dianoor International Ltd (4) Dianoor Jewels Ltd (December 14 2000) (2001) 1 FLR 698.
In this case, the husband successfully appealed against a sentence of six weeks in prison resulting from a judgement summons issued by his wife. Although he had not paid her an agreed – and substantial – sum, he was able to demonstrate that she had not fully clarified the case against him. The previous summons had not recognized, agreed the appeals judge, that that the burden of proof lie on the wife to prove he could pay, not on the husband to prove that he could not. He had the right to a presumption of innocence, just as in a full criminal case."
So if your ex doesn''t pay up you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they can
pay ......... but if the court issued the order to pay that must have been based on evidence of ability to pay ????
Back to proving reluctant payer''s income/assets - impossible?
How would the court do it for bankruptcy?