In Ozturk v Ozturk [2025] EWFC 162 (B), Her Honour Judge Moreton handed down a judgment that should ring loud alarm bells for any party tempted to ignore court orders in divorce proceedings.
This was not a case about big money or complex asset structures—it was about a basic, foundational requirement of every financial remedy case: filing Form E. The husband didn’t file his Form E. He didn’t attend court. He didn’t engage. The result? A suspended prison sentence and a very public warning.
What Happened?
Mr Ozturk was ordered to file his Form E—with supporting documents—by 12 November 2024. That deadline came and went. The order had been personally served on him. He did nothing.
He ignored:
- The initial directions to file Form E by 3 September 2024.
- The First Directions Appointment (FDA) on 8 October 2024.
- A further adjourned FDA in December 2024.
- All attempts to resolve matters out of court.
- The hearing on 8 May 2025 to determine whether he should be committed to prison for contempt.
Despite being properly served with the application and the hearing notice, he simply didn’t show up. The judge concluded that his non-engagement was deliberate and sustained.
The Sentence: 28 Days in Prison – Suspended
The court found Mr Ozturk in contempt of court for breaching a clear, personally served order that carried a penal notice. A custodial sentence of 28 days was imposed, but suspended on the condition that he finally complies and files a proper Form E within 28 days.
The judge made clear: this is his last chance.
Key Takeaways for Practitioners and Clients
- Form E Is Not Optional
Financial disclosure—via Form E—is the bedrock of fair outcomes in divorce. Without it, the court can’t evaluate needs, assets, or obligations. Non-compliance isn’t a strategy; it’s a contempt of court.
- Deliberate Non-Engagement Will Not Be Tolerated
The court described Mr Ozturk’s conduct as “wilful and repeated breaches.” This is what distinguishes late compliance from contempt. Judges will give latitude for mistakes or delay—but not for defiance.
- Committal Is Real
This case is a reminder that the penal notice isn’t an idle threat. Imprisonment for failure to comply with a financial remedy order is rare, but absolutely possible—especially where the party has received repeated opportunities to engage.
- Litigants in Person Are Not Exempt
Mr Ozturk was unrepresented, but that didn’t excuse his conduct. The court was satisfied that he understood his obligations and had simply chosen to ignore them. The court took steps to ensure he’d been served and had notice, which made his absence all the more serious.
- Costs Follow Non-Compliance
The court also awarded costs of £2,210.40 against Mr Ozturk, payable within 14 days. Delay and obstruction don’t just slow the process—they cost money, and the court will not hesitate to make non-compliant parties pay.
Final Thought
Ozturk v Ozturk isn’t about high finance—it’s about high stakes. If you don’t comply with disclosure obligations, you risk not just a worse financial outcome, but potentially your liberty. For lawyers, this case is a powerful tool to explain to reluctant clients why Form E isn’t a bureaucratic nuisance—it’s a legal obligation.
And now, thanks to this judgment, we can say with absolute clarity: ignore it at your peril.
