[2025] EWHC 2501 (Ch)

I have already said (see paragraph 50 above) that there is nothing in this case which persuades me that Sanman’s motive in seeking permission to bring contempt proceedings is to bring pressure to bear on the Respondents in relation to the substantive proceedings or any other pursuit of its private interests. Prosecutorial motive is not therefore a point against granting permission in relation to grounds 3 and 4.

I have concluded that it is of very significant importance to the achievement of the underlying purpose of the freezing order regime that accurate information, as to the defendant’s assets is provided in response to a requirement in a freezing order. Ignoring ground 2 for the moment, if I do not give permission for grounds 3 and 4 to be pursued, there will be no procedure by which it will be determined whether Mr Ginda deliberately made a false statement as to the true balance on TGDM’s PNB account on oath or not and if appropriate a sanction applied. For that reason, I considered that it is both justified and proportionate that the court’s and other resources should be consumed in respect of contempt proceedings to determine whether Mr Ginda provided the deliberately false information on oath, to which ground 3 refers (and breached paragraph 9 of the Freezing Order, to which ground 4 refers) and if appropriate a sanction is applied.

If I assume that Sanman would pursue ground 2, even if I do not give it permission to pursue grounds 3 and 4, then the effect on the considerations of: the use of the court’s and other resources; and proportionality, if I give Sanman permission to pursue grounds 3 and 4 is, in my judgment as follows:

I conclude that, whether or not ground 2 would be pursued, regardless of my decision on grounds 3 and 4, there is sufficient public interest, in protecting the efficacy of the freezing order regime, to mean that use of the court’s and other resources which will be consumed in Sanman pursing grounds 3 and 4 would be justified and proportionate.

I have already said that the overriding objective is a more material consideration for procedural issues in existing proceedings than considering whether permission should be given to commence proceedings at all. In so far as the overriding objective is relevant to my decision, for the reasons already given, I consider that it is both a proportionate use of the court’s resources and that it will advance the just disposal of proceedings (by safeguarding the freezing order regime) for me to give Sanman permission to bring contempt proceedings on grounds 3 and 4.

For the reasons already given in paragraph 57 above, I attribute no material weight to the likely penalty.

For the reasons set out in paragraphs 58 and 59 above I consider that Sanman is a proper person to bring the contempt proceedings.

It is common ground that the statement in paragraph 10 of Mr Ginda’s affidavit of 12 November 2024 is false and I have found that Sanman has a strong prima facie case that Mr Ginda knew that it was false when he made it. I am satisfied, in those circumstances and having balanced the other factors relevant to a finding of contempt and considerations of public interest, that it is appropriate to give Sanman permission to bring contempt proceedings against the Respondents on grounds 3 and 4.

In Cole v Carpenter, Trower J said (see paragraph 18 above) that if the court refuses an applicant permission to pursue committal proceedings on a ground which is substantially identical to a ground which the applicant does not need the court’s permission to pursue, there is at least a serious possibility that the court will grant a stay that prevents the applicant from proceeding with a committal action in relation to the ground for which its permission is not required.

I have determined (see paragraph 19 above) that Sanman does not need permission to pursue contempt proceedings against the Respondents on ground 2 and I said, in paragraph 20 above, that I would leave the question of whether I should grant a stay in respect of ground 2, until I had decided whether or not to grant Sanman permission to proceed on grounds of 3 and 4. As I have decided to grant Sanman permission to proceed on grounds 3 and 4, no question of granting a stay, preventing Sanman from pursuing contempt proceedings on ground 2 arises.