{"id":661039,"date":"2026-04-23T16:27:24","date_gmt":"2026-04-23T14:27:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/jonathan-david-rowland-anor-v-kevin-gerald-stanford\/"},"modified":"2026-04-23T16:27:24","modified_gmt":"2026-04-23T14:27:24","slug":"jonathan-david-rowland-anor-v-kevin-gerald-stanford","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/jonathan-david-rowland-anor-v-kevin-gerald-stanford\/","title":{"rendered":"JONATHAN DAVID ROWLAND & Anor v KEVIN GERALD STANFORD"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

1. MR\u00a0JUSTICE\u00a0ADAM\u00a0JOHNSON: On 10\u00a0June\u00a02021 Master Bowles sitting in private made an Order directed against the Defendant, Mr\u00a0Kevin Gerald\u00a0Stanford, requiring his attendance at the Law\u00a0Courts in Maidstone on 3\u00a0August\u00a02021 before District\u00a0Judge\u00a0OmoRegie, in order to provide information about Mr\u00a0Stanford's means and other information (including in particular documents identified in the schedule to the Order) needed to enforce two earlier Orders for costs made by the Court in January\u00a02021 and April\u00a02021 respectively. 2. I have been shown an Affidavit of service made by a Mr\u00a0Cesar Sepulveda dated 29\u00a0July\u00a02021 confirming that on 7\u00a0July\u00a02021 Mr\u00a0Sepulveda served, amongst other things, a copy of the Order of Master\u00a0Bowles on Mr\u00a0Stanford at his home address in Kent. According to Mr\u00a0Sepulveda, although he drew attention to the penal notice on the Order of\u00a0Master Bowles, and whilst the Defendant did not request any travelling expenses, he would not, says Mr\u00a0Sepulveda, actually admit his identity at the time. Instead, he said he was not the Defendant, Kevin Gerald Stanford, but the man now \u201cknown as Kevin\u201d, although he went on to say that he was authorised to accept service on behalf of the Defendant. 3. This rather odd exchange is characteristic of an approach described by me in an earlier Judgment in these same proceedings: see [2022] EWHC 1436 (Ch). It makes it clear, to my mind, that the person served by Mr\u00a0Sepulveda was in fact the Defendant, Mr\u00a0Stanford. Consequently, I am entirely satisfied that he was properly served personally with the Order of Master\u00a0Bowles. 4. Certain other matters support the view that Mr\u00a0Stanford was aware of the Bowles Order and of the requirement that he attend for examination on 3\u00a0August\u00a02021. On\u00a021\u00a0July\u00a02021 the Claimants' solicitors received a document entitled "Promissory\u00a0Note", which indicated on its face that it would mature and be payable together with accrued interest on 30\u00a0September\u00a02021. The Promissory Note identified the principal amount payable thereunder as roughly \u00a3146,000. That corresponds in effect to the amount of the two costs' Orders at that stage payable by Mr\u00a0Stanford. 5. Then in an email dated 30\u00a0July\u00a02021, sent on behalf of Mr\u00a0Stanford, his representative Mr\u00a0Jackman suggested that any and all alleged financial obligations to the Claimants had been discharged, and therefore offered the view that the hearing scheduled for 3\u00a0August 2021 was unnecessary. 6. On 2\u00a0August 2021 Mr\u00a0Jackman sent a package of documents to the Court Office in Maidstone, copied to the Claimants\u2019 solicitors. Among the documents supplied was a letter headed "Notice of Conditional Acceptance." This set out certain demands which Mr\u00a0Stanford appeared to require to be complied with as conditions of his attendance at the examination then fixed for 3\u00a0August\u00a02021. Another document supplied was described as an Affidavit of Mr Stanford. This referred at paragraph\u00a05 to the costs Orders then outstanding to the Claimants having been discharged by the Promissory Note I have mentioned. It then went on to refer to Mr\u00a0Stanford's belief that that being so, there were no grounds of contempt by the failure of anyone to attend the examination scheduled for 3\u00a0August. 7. It seems to me, as Mr\u00a0McLeod pointed out in his submissions, that these documents are significant in two senses. First, in the sense that they indicate Mr\u00a0Stanford had indeed received a copy of the Bowles Order and was fully aware of what it required. The second point is that they indicate a degree of awareness on Mr\u00a0Stanford's part that the consequences of his non-attendance might well involve a finding of contempt against him. In his document referred to as an Affidavit, he resisted that conclusion on the basis of the Promissory Note, and, it seems, also on the basis of his Notice of Conditional Acceptance. As regards the first of these, however, his Promissory Note did not operate to discharge the debt owed by him to the Claimants. As to the second, i.e. the Notice of Conditional Acceptance, again, as I have held in connection with other matters involving Mr\u00a0Stanford, it is not open to him, relying on the alternative system of justice to which, at least at one stage, he professed adherence, to resist the effect of Orders made by this Court. 8. In any event, the evidence is that Mr\u00a0Stanford did not appear as required before the Court in Maidstone on 3\u00a0August\u00a02021. In consequence, an Order was made by District\u00a0Judge\u00a0OmoRegie requiring the matter to be referred for consideration under CPR\u00a071.8. 9. After some delay an Order was eventually made on 9\u00a0May\u00a02022 by Leech\u00a0J in the Chancery Division of the High\u00a0Court. He gave directions for evidence to be served by the Claimants and by Mr\u00a0Stanford if he so chose. The Claimants' evidence in the form of Mr\u00a0Shacklady's Tenth Witness Statement was served on 18\u00a0May\u00a02022. Mr\u00a0Stanford served no evidence of his own in accordance with the deadline set by Leech J. 10. Following that, on 7\u00a0July\u00a02022, I made a further Order directing the matter to come on for hearing today in connection with another matter in which Mr\u00a0Stanford is involved. Again, I gave an indication that Mr\u00a0Stanford, if he wished to, could serve further evidence and could seek permission to rely on it at the hearing before me. No evidence was in fact served by Mr\u00a0Stanford. Mr\u00a0Stanford has been present throughout the hearing today and has heard the submissions made by Mr\u00a0McLeod. He offers no resistance as such to the Order now sought against him, but he has offered his apology to the Court. 11. The question is, what should now happen in light of this background. The Claimants invite the Court to make a suspended committal order under CPR\u00a071.8(2). 12. The proper approach was explained by the Court of Appeal in Broomleigh Housing Association Limited vOkonkwo [2010] EWCA Civ 1113. I have considered the various options identified in that case and I am satisfied to the criminal standard, that is to say beyond a reasonable doubt, both that Mr\u00a0Stanford was served with Bowles Order and that his failure to attend his examination was intentional. In those circumstances, it seems to me I should proceed to make a suspended committal Order, having regard to the background I have described. 13. As to my finding that the failure to attend was intentional, this depends on the matters I have already drawn attention to. Mr\u00a0Stanford was plainly aware of the Bowles Order and, as it seems to me, must have been aware of the possible effects of non-compliance. He simply chose not to attend, relying instead on the Promissory Note and other correspondence he had sent to the Court. None of that, however, provided any reasonable excuse for non-attendance and no alternative reasonable explanation has been offered. Indeed, Mr\u00a0Stanford has served no evidence in response to any of the invitations that he do so. 14. For all those reasons, and being satisfied otherwise that the requirements of CPR\u00a071.4 and 71.5 have been duly complied with, I will make an Order in the form sought by the Claimants, in line with the approach adopted by Arnold\u00a0J in Ticketus\u00a0LLP v. Whyte [2014] EWHC 3232 (Ch). I am satisfied that a period of 28 days is appropriate in the circumstances of this case, as it was in that case. I propose therefore to make an Order that Mr\u00a0Stanford be committed for 28\u00a0days but with the Order suspended on the usual basis. I will now discuss further, to the extent necessary, the appropriate form of Order. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Unit 1 Blenheim Court, Beaufort Business Park, Bristol BS32 4NE Email: civil@epiqglobal.co.uk This transcript has been approved by the Judge<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n

Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

1. MR JUSTICE ADAM JOHNSON: On 10 June 2021 Master Bowles sitting in private made an Order directed against the Defendant, Mr Kevin Gerald Stanford, requiring his attendance at the Law Courts in Maidstone on 3 August 2021 before District Judge OmoRegie, in order to provide information about Mr Stanford’s means and other information (including in particular documents identified in…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[7642],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[32183],"kji_subject":[7612],"kji_keyword":[33924,7945,7707,11066,34005],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-661039","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-high-court-business-list","kji_year-32183","kji_subject-fiscal","kji_keyword-bowles","kji_keyword-claimants","kji_keyword-order","kji_keyword-served","kji_keyword-stanford","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nJONATHAN DAVID ROWLAND & Anor v KEVIN GERALD STANFORD - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/jonathan-david-rowland-anor-v-kevin-gerald-stanford\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"zh_CN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"JONATHAN DAVID ROWLAND & Anor v KEVIN GERALD STANFORD\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"1. MR JUSTICE ADAM JOHNSON: On 10 June 2021 Master Bowles sitting in private made an Order directed against the Defendant, Mr Kevin Gerald Stanford, requiring his attendance at the Law Courts in Maidstone on 3 August 2021 before District Judge OmoRegie, in order to provide information about Mr Stanford's means and other information (including in particular documents identified in...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/jonathan-david-rowland-anor-v-kevin-gerald-stanford\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"7 \u5206\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/jonathan-david-rowland-anor-v-kevin-gerald-stanford\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/jonathan-david-rowland-anor-v-kevin-gerald-stanford\\\/\",\"name\":\"JONATHAN DAVID ROWLAND & Anor v KEVIN GERALD STANFORD - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-23T14:27:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/jonathan-david-rowland-anor-v-kevin-gerald-stanford\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/jonathan-david-rowland-anor-v-kevin-gerald-stanford\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/jonathan-david-rowland-anor-v-kevin-gerald-stanford\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"JONATHAN DAVID ROWLAND & Anor v KEVIN GERALD STANFORD\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"JONATHAN DAVID ROWLAND & Anor v KEVIN GERALD STANFORD - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/jonathan-david-rowland-anor-v-kevin-gerald-stanford\/","og_locale":"zh_CN","og_type":"article","og_title":"JONATHAN DAVID ROWLAND & Anor v KEVIN GERALD STANFORD","og_description":"1. MR JUSTICE ADAM JOHNSON: On 10 June 2021 Master Bowles sitting in private made an Order directed against the Defendant, Mr Kevin Gerald Stanford, requiring his attendance at the Law Courts in Maidstone on 3 August 2021 before District Judge OmoRegie, in order to provide information about Mr Stanford's means and other information (including in particular documents identified in...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/jonathan-david-rowland-anor-v-kevin-gerald-stanford\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4":"7 \u5206"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/jonathan-david-rowland-anor-v-kevin-gerald-stanford\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/jonathan-david-rowland-anor-v-kevin-gerald-stanford\/","name":"JONATHAN DAVID ROWLAND & Anor v KEVIN GERALD STANFORD - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-23T14:27:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/jonathan-david-rowland-anor-v-kevin-gerald-stanford\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"zh-Hans","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/jonathan-david-rowland-anor-v-kevin-gerald-stanford\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/jonathan-david-rowland-anor-v-kevin-gerald-stanford\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"JONATHAN DAVID ROWLAND & Anor v KEVIN GERALD STANFORD"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"zh-Hans"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"zh-Hans","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/661039","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=661039"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=661039"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=661039"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=661039"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=661039"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=661039"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=661039"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=661039"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}