Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Solicitor General v Millinder bearing on any defence to the application for committal, Mr Millinder logged off from the remote hearing. 74. In the light of Mr Millinder’s disengagement with the process, the Court paused the committal proceedings to deal with the application relating to Mr Walsh’s company, and scheduled the sanctions hearing for 2pm. I directed that a message be sent to Mr Millinder to inform him that the hearing would resume at 2pm and that if he wished to say anything by way of mitigation or in relation to the question of sanctions, he would be heard. This was done. However, although the Court kept the CVP link open, Mr Millinder did not re-join the hearing. Sanction 75. The Court therefore had to consider whether it was appropriate to proceed with the sanctions hearing in Mr Millinder’s absence, given that he had been afforded an opportunity to address the Court. Mr Hays drew the Court’s attention to para 81.28.6 of the White Book and to the list of relevant factors set out in paragraph 5 of the judgment of Mr Justice Cobb in Sanchez v Oboz [2-15] EWHC 235 (Fam). 76. Mr Millinder was undoubtedly served with all the relevant documents; Mr Hays confirmed that all the documents had been served in accordance with Kerr J’s order at the email addresses specified in that order. Mr Millinder had failed to co-operate with the Treasury Solicitor’s attempts to agree the contents of the bundles for the hearing. In the course of the morning, the Court rose for a short time so that Mr Millinder could be supplied with links to the electronic Core Bundle, because he claimed that he had not received the Solicitor General’s skeleton argument. Mr Millinder supplied a different email address for the purpose of being sent the link to the Core Bundle, which was an address he claimed he had been using for some time. Given that Mr Millinder’s precise location is unknown, and that he is outside the jurisdiction, the Court proposes to dispense with personal service and to direct that a copy of this judgment and the committal order be sent to Mr Millinder at that email address, and that this will constitute good and valid service upon him. 77. The Court was satisfied that when he logged off the CVP system, Mr Millinder deliberately waived his right to continue to be present remotely, and that an adjournment of the sanctions hearing to another occasion would be unlikely to facilitate his attendance. He had terminated the link voluntarily out of pique because the Court was not prepared to allow him to repeat irrelevant arguments that had already been covered extensively in the 6000 pages of documents he had lodged in response to the application. He had already made it clear that he did not wish to avail himself of his right to legal representation at public expense. No prejudice would be caused to Mr Millinder nor to the forensic process by continuing with the hearing. It was plainly in the interests of justice and in accordance with the overriding objective for the matter to proceed without any further delay. 78. The approach to be taken by the Court when considering the appropriate sanctions for proven contempt of court was usefully summarised by the Supreme Court in Attorney General v Crosland [2021] UKSC 15 at [44] as follows: 20