Judge warns against jailing debtors, urges restraint

A HIGH COURT judge has cautioned against using contempt proceedings to enforce unpaid debts, warning that imprisonment should not be used as a tool to punish financial hardship.

In a ruling on May 19, Justice Frank Seepersad dismissed a contempt application which sought to imprison a man who failed to pay court-ordered legal costs of $16,000.

Seepersad said such applications should only be pursued in cases where the judgment debtor has the means to pay but was wilfully refusing or neglecting to do so.

“The court cannot and will not use imprisonment as a sword and incarcerate citizens because of either poverty or the absence of financial prospects,” Seepersad said.

He acknowledged that many citizens are “impoverished, suffering or barely surviving” and that incarceration imposes a further burden on the State’s already strained prison system.

He said while judgment debtors also experienced financial difficulties, incarceration should not be viewed as an automatic alternative.

“Incarceration places a heavy burden on the State, and the prison system is already taxed. The liberty of citizens is an enshrined constitutional right, and due process is paramount.

“As a result, care and caution have to be exercised for applications for contempt and committal.”

He also urged attorneys to exercise restraint.

“In most scenarios where a judgment debt is owed and if the judgment debtor has no identifiable personal property which could be levied upon or real property which could be sold, a judgment summons should be issued. Thereafter, a means assessment needs to be conducted so that the court can make an order for the repayment of the debt by way of instalments.”

Seepersad suggested legislative and procedural amendments to authorise the guarding of instalment orders by imposing a term of imprisonment.

In 2023, at the end of a civil claim that was dismissed, the claimant was ordered to pay costs. He made a single payment of $2,000 in December 2023 and made no further payments despite efforts by the defendants to enforce the court’s order.

The contempt application was then filed in January 2025, invoking the civil proceedings rules and provisions of the Debtors Act, which allow for committal where it can be shown that a debtor has the means to pay but refuses to do so.

In the case before him, the judge said there was no evidence to prove that the claimant had the means to pay or deliberately defaulted.