Court of Appeal clarifies approach to contempt arising from abuse of the Breathing Space scheme

The Court of Appeal's decisions in Mavin v Wyatt [2026] EWCA Civ 448 and Mavin v Wyatt [2026] EWCA Civ 585 provide important guidance on contempt proceedings arising from the misuse of statutory debt relief measures. The case concerned findings that a tenant had repeatedly and fraudulently used the Debt Respite Scheme ("Breathing Space") to delay possession proceedings and enforcement action by a landlord. 

In the first decision, the Court of Appeal considered an appeal against findings of contempt made by the County Court. The Court upheld the majority of the contempt findings, concluding that there was substantial evidence of misuse of the Breathing Space regime. However, it set aside two of the contempt findings because of procedural irregularities affecting those particular counts. Although most of the contempt findings remained intact, the Court held that the sentencing exercise had been affected by the errors and therefore required reconsideration.

The matter returned to the Court of Appeal for sentencing, where the Court undertook the sentencing exercise afresh. The Court reaffirmed the seriousness of conduct which undermines the proper operation of court proceedings and public debt relief schemes. Having upheld five findings of contempt, it re-sentenced the appellant in light of the surviving findings and the relevant mitigating factors advanced on his behalf.

These decisions are significant for practitioners dealing with contempt and committal proceedings. They demonstrate the courts' willingness to treat deliberate abuse of statutory processes as serious contempts of court, while at the same time ensuring strict procedural fairness before findings of contempt are allowed to stand. The judgments also underline the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the Court of Appeal's readiness to intervene where procedural defects may have influenced the original penalty.

For landlords, litigators and public law practitioners alike, the case serves as a reminder that statutory protections such as the Breathing Space scheme are intended to assist those in genuine financial difficulty and cannot be manipulated to frustrate lawful court orders without potentially serious consequences.

Equally when conducting committal proceedings you must follow the rules and ensure that you have conducted the case to the highest standards.