[2025] EWHC 2501 (Ch)

Mr Robins says that I should conclude that Sanman is not making the Application to promote the public interest, but rather to use as a “stick to beat” the Respondents with, in the substantive proceedings. Mr Robins refers to:

Mr Watson says that there is simply no evidence here of permission being sought for an improper collateral purpose, such as putting pressure upon the Respondents in the substantive proceedings.

I asked Mr Robins what the particular features of this case were which should lead me to conclude that Sanman was illegitimately using the threat of contempt proceedings to bring pressure to bear on the defendants, in the substantive proceedings. Mr Robins responded to my question by repeating the point recorded in paragraph 47 (b) above and by referring to the fact that Mr Heer had not exhibited key documents, which he said revealed grounds 1 and 5 to be baseless.

In my judgement there is nothing in the facts of this case that gives me any reason to have concerns about the motives of Sanman in seeking permission to bring contempt proceedings beyond what may be suggested in any case where one party seeks permission to bring contempt proceedings against another and the substantive proceedings between them are still ongoing. I do not consider “prosecutorial motive” to be a factor against granting permission in this case.