![[2025] EWHC 2501 (Ch)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_O3rEzCI.png){kind=logo}
Does Sanman have a Strong Prima Facie Case that the statement is false?
Does Sanman have a Strong Prima Facie Case that the statement is false?
It is common ground that the statement in paragraph 10 of Mr Ginda’s affidavit of 12 November 2024 is false. The balance on TGDM’s PNB account between 29 October 2024 and 14 November 2024 was £11,118,533.17 and not £9,315,733 as Mr Ginda said it was, in paragraph 10 of his affidavit dated 12 November 2024. Sanman will therefore be able to show that the statement is false.
- Heading
- INTRODUCTION
- THE PERMISSION APPLIED FOR
- EVIDENCE
- THE NEED FOR PERMISSION
- “It has been emphasised that the court should exercise great caution before giving permission to bring proceedings [and] should not do so unless there is a strong case both that the statement in quest
- APPLYING THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES TO THE GROUNDS
- Significance of and use to which the Statement was put/motive
- THE PUBLIC INTEREST
- Prosecutorial Motive
- Would contempt proceedings justify the court’s and other resources which would be devoted to them?/Proportionality
- Furthering the Overriding Objective
- Likely Penalty
- Is Sanman a Proper Person to bring the Contempt proceedings?
- The Need for Great Caution
- GROUNDS 3 AND 4
- Does Sanman have a Strong Prima Facie Case that the statement is false?
- Does Sanman have a Strong Prima Facie Case that Mr Ginda knew the Statement to be untrue?
- The significance of the false statement, use to which it was put and Mr Ginda’s motive
- Conclusions