Can a court order that property be seized as a remedy for contempt?

The second modern English case to which I shall refer is Mir v. Mir, [1992] 1 All E.R. 765, in which the court ordered that property be seized as a remedy for contempt concerning a child custody order. In Mir, the defendant had left England for Pakistan with his “ward”, in contravention of the court’s custody order. His former spouse had him declared in contempt of court and obtained an order for sequestration of his real property with leave to let it and use it as security for a loan. When the sequestration failed to coerce the defendant to return to England and discharge the contempt, the former spouse sought a variation of the order permitting her to sell the real property and use the proceeds to fund further litigation in Pakistan. In considering the availability of such a remedy, Baker J. reviewed the case law in England, which held provided an order for sequestration following a finding of contempt could not be used to sell real property, as opposed to personal property. He determined those historical cases were predicated on the fact that when they were decided there was no practical way for a court to effect a legitimate transfer of title without the compliance of the owner.

In considering the current state of English law regarding the writ of sequestration, Baker J. referred to a similar case he had decided, Richardson v. Richardson, [1989] 3 All E.R. 779 at 783, where he had observed: Sequestration is an ancient tool of the law used as a last resort for enforcing orders of the court. Ancient tools need if possible to be adapted for use in modern conditions. In my judgment where otherwise the whole purpose of the sequestration would be defeated, the court is not constrained by ancient practice . . .