Al-Ko Kober Ltd & Anor v Sambhi [2018] EWHC 165 (QB) (02 February 2018)

Al-Ko Kober Ltd & Anor v Sambhi [2018] EWHC 165 (QB) (02 February 2018)

The court found, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant was responsible for creating and operating multiple YouTube accounts and uploading videos containing statements prohibited by the injunction order, based on the cumulative circumstantial evidence (timing, IP addresses, content, unique identifiers, and personal references). The exhibition handout did not, on its objective meaning, breach the order. Procedural requirements for service were dispensed with as the defendant had actual notice and was able to defend himself. The defendant was found in contempt of court for breach of the injunction by publication of the videos.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 165
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Al-Ko Kober Limited; Claimant/applicant: Paul Jones; Defendant/respondent: Balvinder Sambhi
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Application (civil) / Judgment on Committal Application for Alleged Breach of Interim Injunction
Outcome
Defendant found in contempt of court for breach of injunction by publication of prohibited videos; not in contempt regarding the exhibition handout.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Interim Injunctions, Malicious Falsehood, Breach of Data Protection Act 1998, Personal Service Requirements, Evidence (circumstantial), Meaning of Prohibited Statements
Civil Procedure Media Law Defamation Data Protection Contempt of Court Interim Injunctions Malicious Falsehood Breach of Data Protection Act 1998 +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Al-Ko Kober Limited

Claimant/applicant

Paul Jones

Claimant/applicant

Balvinder Sambhi

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court Application (civil) / Judgment on Committal Application for Alleged Breach of Interim Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached the terms of the interim injunction order dated 6 October 2017 by publishing prohibited statements via YouTube videos and exhibition handouts
  2. 2 Whether procedural requirements for committal for contempt were satisfied, including service and penal notice
  3. 3 Whether the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was responsible for the publications

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant was responsible for creating and operating multiple YouTube accounts and uploading videos containing statements prohibited by the injunction order, based on the cumulative circumstantial evidence (timing, IP addresses, content, unique identifiers, and personal references). The exhibition handout did not, on its objective meaning, breach the order. Procedural requirements for service were dispensed with as the defendant had actual notice and was able to defend himself. The defendant was found in contempt of court for breach of the injunction by publication of the videos.

Court Disposition

Defendant found in contempt of court for breach of injunction by publication of prohibited videos; not in contempt regarding the exhibition handout.

Orders

  • Defendant sanctioned for contempt of court; penalty to be determined at a further hearing.
  • Requirement for personal service of the order and application notice dispensed with.