EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
Evidence in support of the Application is contained in an affidavit of Pardeep Heer dated 17 June 2025. Mr Heer is a director of Sanman. In his affidavit, Mr Heer refers to the statements which he says were false, upon which all five grounds are based, he explains why he says that those statements were false and why he says that Mr Ginda would know that they were false. He also seeks to explain why he considers that Mr Ginda decided to make those false statements, knowing that they were false.
No evidence has been submitted in opposition to the Application, by Mr Ginda or anyone else.
REPRESENTATION
Before me Sanman was represented by Mr Watson and the Respondents by Mr Robins KC.
- 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
![[2025] EWHC 2501 (Ch)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_O3rEzCI.png)