![[2025] EWHC 2501 (Ch)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_O3rEzCI.png){kind=logo}
The Need for Great Caution
The Need for Great Caution
This is the second of the additional points made by Moore-Bick LJ in KJM Superbikes(see paragraph 26 (d) above).
Moore-Bick LJ says that the court should exercise great caution before giving permission and should not do so unless there is a strong case that the statement is untrue and the maker knew it to be untrue when they made it. I have decided not to grant permission in relation to grounds 1 and 5, because I am not satisfied that Sanman’s case, that the statements which form the subject matter of grounds 1 and 5 are untrue or that, if it they were untrue, Mr Ginda knew them to be untrue, is a strong prima facie case.
- 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