Collardeau v Fuchs (Contempt of Court: Sentencing) [2026] EWFC 44

Judgment date: 11 February 2026

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2026/44

Poole J.

Summary

Ms Collardeau’s application seeking the committal of Mr Fuchs, for contempt of court. No separate penalty for contempt was ordered, but a costs order was made against Mr Fuchs, summarily assessed at £100,000 inclusive of VAT.

Background

The parties were married in 2012 and separated in 2020. There are two children of the marriage. There was a pre-nuptial agreement made in March 2012, amended by agreement in March 2014.

The parties have been engaged in long-running, hostile financial remedy proceedings which have been the subject of a numerous, published judgments. In his final order, Mostyn J ordered Mr Fuchs to pay the mortgage on the family home in London until the youngest child turned 21, and to pay Ms Collardeau a lump sum of £19m within 14 days. Mr Fuchs ceased paying the mortgage and did not pay the lump sum.

A series of applications to enforce the final order were made by Ms Collardeau.

On 28 March 2025, Poole J made an order to preserve properties so as not to prejudice the variation and enforcement application. Amongst other things, Mr Fuchs was prohibited from selling a property in America – ‘ML1’. A penal notice was attached to that direction.

On 25 June 2025, Mr Fuchs sold ML1 for US$26m with net proceeds of over $10m. Mr Fuchs gave the proceeds to his friend and associate, Mr Rosen, not to Ms Collardeau.

In July 2025, Ms Collardeau applied for the committal of Mr Fuchs for contempt of court on account of his sale of ML1 – and in three other respects, which were not found and/or pursued against him.

On 7 November 2025, with judgment published on 28 November 2025 – Collardeau v Fuchs (Contempt of Court) [2025] EWFC 413 – Mr Fuchs was found to have been in contempt of court by breaching the order dated 28 March 2025 when he sold ML1.

Just prior to the hearing on 7 November 2025, Mr Fuchs made large lump sum payments to Ms Collardeau of US$31m and US$10m, followed by a £20,000 lump sum payment in January 2026. It was thereafter agreed that all amounts due and owed to Ms Collardeau had been paid, save for some unassessed costs. Other substantial payments had been made to Ms Collardeau since the final order.

Mr Fuchs had been open about the sale of ML1 and had ultimately accepted it was a breach of the order dated 28 March 2025. He said he needed a quick sale to raise the money required to unlock liquidity which would enable him to pay monies owed to Ms Collardeau under the variation and enforcement orders. Mr Fuchs set out that a quick sale opportunity presented itself, and he took it. Upon the sale and transfer of the net proceeds from ML1 to Mr Rosen, Mr Fuchs made arrangements, with the assistance of Mr Rosen, to raise the monies owed to Ms Collardeau, and then he paid them. Mr Fuchs accepted he should have sought variation, but seemingly sought to justify his actions as they eventually resulted in compliance with the final financial remedy order which benefited Ms Collardeau.

Decision

In considering the appropriate sentence for the single contempt, Poole J adopted [21] to [23] of Cobb J’s judgment in Re Greg Hazeltine [2024] EWHC 2982 (Fam).

Poole J determined that in all the circumstances, this was not a case in which only a sentence of imprisonment would suffice to meet the seriousness of the contempt of court. The alternative options for the court to consider were a sequestration of assets, a fine or no order.

The court felt sequestration of assets was not appropriate due to there being outstanding applications regarding securing future periodical payments for the benefit of the children, which concerned transferring and/or securing of assets. There was a danger that the contempt proceedings could become entangled with or affect the applications in the substantive proceedings.

In consideration of a fine, the court also considered the costs sought by Ms Collardeau in relation to her contempt application, which were over £200,000 inclusive of VAT. Only one of the four allegations brought had ultimately been pursued and/or found as proved. Mr Fuchs complained he had no access to funds. The court accepted that he would struggle to raise sufficient cash to pay a very substantial fine and substantial costs, whilst also covering considerable ongoing liabilities in respect of school fees and periodical payments for the benefit of the children.

Ultimately, the court determined that unless the fine were set at a wholly disproportionate level, it would be nominal compared to the US$41m that Mr Fuchs paid to Ms Collardeau after the breach. A substantial fine would deplete funds which could be used for the benefit of the children, and a nominal fine would be a futile exercise in all the circumstances of the case.

Accordingly, no order save as to costs was made.

The court went on to summarily assess the costs Mr Fuchs was ordered to pay as being £100,000 inclusive of VAT payable within 21 days. No separate penalty was imposed for his contempt.