← All Authorities
United Kingdom committalchild abductionmandatory injunctions

Wilkinson v Anjum

Re W (Abduction: Committal) [2011] EWCA Civ 1196, [2012] 1 WLR 1036, [2012] 2 FLR 133 (parties also cited as Wilkinson v Anjum)
JurisdictionUnited Kingdom
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
Year2011
StatusBinding authority

Key Principle

Where a contemnor has already served the maximum two-year term for failing to comply with a mandatory order (e.g. to disclose a child's whereabouts and effect return), the court may make a fresh identical mandatory order and, on continued non-compliance, impose a further term of imprisonment, provided each fresh committal is necessary and proportionate.

Area of Law

General

Related Cases

TNLC & Anor v Gambling Commission & Ors [2026] EWHC 891 (TCC)
Aabar Holdings S.A.R.L. and others v Glencore Plc and others [2026] EWHC 877 (Comm)
Waterside Class Limited v Mowi ASA & Ors [2026] CAT 32

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Wilkinson v Anjum and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Wilkinson v Anjum