Grubb v Grubb [2009] EWCA Civ 976 – Enforcement, Contempt, and Proportionality in Family Law
Overview
Grubb v Grubb [2009] EWCA Civ 976 remains a leading authority on the principles of enforcement, contempt, and proportionality within family financial proceedings and occupation orders. The case highlights the courts’ responsibility to ensure that protective orders are exercised fairly, proportionately, and with due regard to both parties’ welfare.
Background
This case arose from long-running ancillary relief proceedings following the breakdown of a marriage. The husband initially denied that the marriage had broken down irretrievably or that his behaviour made it unreasonable for the wife to continue living with him. The couple had five children, two of whom were still living at home while attending boarding school. It was agreed that the wife and children would remain in the matrimonial home until the financial matters were resolved.
The matrimonial home formed part of a substantial family estate that had been in the husband’s family for many years. The husband managed several businesses from the estate and saw himself as the steward of the family assets, which made him anxious about the financial consequences of divorce. As the relationship deteriorated, tensions escalated and the husband’s behaviour became increasingly controlling. He refused to provide his wife with house keys and threatened to lock her out of the home. The wife made it clear that she did not intend to remain in the property once a financial settlement had been reached.
The Court of Appeal’s Decision
The Court of Appeal refused the husband’s application for permission to appeal against an occupation order made in favour of the wife. The court found that the husband had ample means and access to alternative accommodation, yet had failed to make reasonable proposals for his wife’s housing needs. The occupation order was temporary, as the wife was expected to leave once alternative accommodation became available.
The husband’s behaviour was found to be controlling and amounted to harassment, which had a detrimental effect on the wife’s mental health. These findings justified the occupation and non-molestation orders. The Court of Appeal stressed that persistent defiance of family court orders carries serious consequences. Although imprisonment is an exceptional measure, it remains a legitimate means of ensuring compliance, deterring further breaches, and maintaining public confidence in the family justice system.
Why Grubb v Grubb Matters
The case reinforces the principle that occupation orders are protective, not punitive, and must be justified by clear evidence of necessity and proportionality. It shows that emotional or psychological harm, even without physical violence, can support the granting of an occupation order where it is necessary to protect the applicant’s welfare.
Equally, the case highlights the importance of respecting court orders. Continued disobedience of family court rulings—whether related to maintenance, disclosure, or residence—can result in committal for contempt. The decision demonstrates that compliance with family court orders is not optional and that the courts retain wide-ranging powers to enforce them.
Practical Implications for Practitioners
For family lawyers, Grubb v Grubb continues to provide clear guidance on how to apply section 33 of the Family Law Act 1996, particularly in high-value or emotionally charged cases. The court’s reasoning shows that an occupation order can be granted based on necessity and reasonableness rather than purely on the presence of physical harm.
Practitioners should ensure that their submissions address the relevant statutory factors under section 33(6), including housing needs, financial resources, conduct, and the overall welfare of any children involved. Orders should be time-limited and proportionate, ensuring that they serve to protect rather than punish.
The case also emphasises the importance of evidence. Allegations of stress, intimidation, or deteriorating health should be supported by documentation or testimony. Where possible, solicitors should consider whether alternative accommodation or negotiated arrangements can achieve a fair and balanced outcome without unnecessary escalation.
Conclusion
Grubb v Grubb [2009] EWCA Civ 976 remains a cornerstone of family law practice in 2025. It continues to guide courts and practitioners on the limits of judicial discretion, the enforcement of orders, and the careful balance between protection and proportionality. The case stands as a reminder that while the court will act decisively to prevent harassment and uphold its orders, every decision must be grounded in fairness, evidence, and the overarching aim of safeguarding the welfare of all involved.