Simon John Hanford v Sadie Tamsin Ives

Case No: K01RG483 Neutral Citation Number: 2026] EWCC 28 IN THE COUNTY COURT AT READING Date: 5 MAY 2026 Before : DDJ Brafield – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Between : Simon John Hanford – Claimant And Sadie Tamsin Ives – Defendant – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Hearing date: 5 May 2026 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Approved Judgment This judgment was delivered in open court before the claimant in person. Appearances The claimant appeared in person. The defendant did not appear at the hearing. JUDGMENT OF DEPUTY DISTRICT JUDGE BRAFIELD

1. This matter appears before me this afternoon to consider what sanctions should be imposed upon the Defendant for failure to comply with two court orders dated 7 October 2024 and more recently 20 January 2025.

2. By way of background, this matter concerns the sale of a property owned and formerly occupied by the parties being 2, Blenheim Road, Newbury, Berkshire. The claimant no longer lives at that property, his relationship with the defendant having come to an end.

3. The Claimant applied for an order for sale of the property under The Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 which was granted by an order of D J Nicholson dated 4 June 2024. The defendant did not appear at that hearing and, indeed, has played only a limited role in these proceedings throughout.

4. The defendant did not comply with that order for sale or show any intention of so complying with the result that the claimant issued enforcement proceedings.

5. The matter appeared in this court on 7 October 2024 when the defendant did appear before District Judge Matthews.

6. His order (dated 9 October 2024) was that she should permit Hillier and Wilson, Estate Agents, to enter the property for the purposes of valuing it and thereafter marketing it for sale.

7. It appears that there was no further movement after this with the result that the matter came before D J Nicholson on 14 January 2025. The defendant appeared and admitted that she had not allowed the estate agents to visit the property, with the result that she thereby admitted to being in breach of the Order of 7 October 2024. The judge ordered on that occasion that she must comply and now attached a penal notice to this requirement.

8. Again, there was no further movement with the result that the claimant started committal proceedings which were considered by DJ Comiskey on 18 August 2025 when she gave suitable directions for its conduct.

9. This resulted in what was effectively the committal hearing, again before D J Nicholson on 12 March 2026. The Defendant appeared in person and the court made the finding of fact that she was in breach of the orders of 7 October 2024 and 14 January 2025, to the latter of which was attached the penal notice.

10. I am satisfied by a certificate of service dated 2 February 2026 that that order of 14 January 2025 with its penal notice was personally served on the defendant by the court bailiff.

11. The matter was adjourned to today for consideration of sanctions and upon the defendant’s repeated confirmation that she would, at this eleventh hour and having admitted her breach, allow the estate agents access.

12. Mr Hanford appeared before me today but there was no appearance from the defendant.

13. Mr Hanford has shown me emails from the estate agent that record failed attendances and that the house is now in an extremely poor state. In oral evidence he told me that the estate agents had said that they had now taken matters as far as they could.

14. I am satisfied, therefore, that due process has been completed and that the defendant has been found to be in breach by her own admission.

15. I turn now to consider what sanction might be appropriate in which regard I refer to the Sentencing Guidelines.

16. I am satisfied from the above history that, notwithstanding warnings from this court, the attachment of a penal notice, and her several promises to comply, the defendant has no intention of complying with the court’s orders. This is therefore a deliberate and serious contempt, the deliberate nature of which places it in category B.

17. On the other hand, this is to be distinguished from a breach which has caused obvious physical harm to a victim; I do not for a moment wish to undervalue the obvious frustration experienced in this matter by Mr Hanford but we are talking about frustration and delay here rather than, for example, physical injury or danger.

18. For that reason I find the harm to fall into category

3.

19. Having said that, I am satisfied that a custodial sentence, or at least the threat of a custodial sentence, is the only way in which this defendant will understand that she must comply. I cannot imagine that she would take any notice of a fine, another warning, or any lesser sanction.

20. This must be for the shortest period necessary to enable the primary aim of compliance with the court order of 14 January 2025. There are no particular mitigating factors I need to bear in mind so I impose a sentence of 7 days.

21. The aim of this sentence is twofold; to show that the court is serious about enforcing the order, but also, and mainly, to try and achieve compliance. For that reason I am satisfied that an immediate custodial sentence is not required and that the aim of the sentence might be achieved with this final warning, hanging a sword over the defendant’s head.

22. I am therefore suspending the custodial sentence for a period of 6 months until 30 October 2026 on condition that the defendant now complies with the order requiring her to give access to the estate agents.

23. I order that the matter is to be further adjourned to the first open date after 14 days with a time estimate of 60 minutes, to be heard before D D J Nicholson at which he will consider whether to amend this sentence to an immediate custodial sentence if there is no evidence of the defendant now complying with the court’s orders. ORDER Upon hearing the claimant in person and the defendant not appearing. And upon the court noting that the court has already ratified committal proceedings and found the defendant to be in breach by her own admission of 12 January 2025 and as recorded in the order of 12 March 2026 The defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 7 days, suspended for a period of 6 months until 30 October 2026 on condition that she now allows the estate agents Hillier and Wilson access to the property 2 Blenheim Road, Newbury, for the purposes of valuation and then marketing. The matter is adjourned for further consideration before DDJ Nicholson on the first open date after 14 days with a time estimate of 60 minutes. The defendant is warned that if she does not appear at that hearing, the court will consider exercising its power to convert this to an immediate custodial sentence. A copy of this order and the Notice of the adjourned hearing is to be personally served on the defendant. Mark Brafield DDJ 5 May 2026