Klotho Brands Limited v Kevin- Gerald Stanford

Klotho Brands Limited v Kevin- Gerald Stanford

The respondent, with actual knowledge of the 2022 injunction order, breached its terms by preparing and sending documents that, in substance, asserted rights or interests in the relevant shares, notwithstanding disclaimers. The court dispensed with personal service as the respondent suffered no prejudice, and procedural objections regarding service, joinder, and alleged fraud did not affect the enforceability of the order or the finding of contempt.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: Klotho Brands Limited (formerly known as Lion/Heaven UK II Limited); Defendant/respondent: Kevin-Gerald Stanford (formerly known as Kevin Gerald Stanford)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Application (civil) / Judgment on Contempt Application Following Hearing; Consequential Matters Adjourned
Outcome
Respondent found in contempt of court for breaching the injunction order of 5 April 2022.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Injunctions, Service of Court Orders, Share Ownership Disputes, Fraud Allegations, Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
Civil Procedure Equity Company Law Contempt of Court Injunctions Service of Court Orders Share Ownership Disputes Fraud Allegations +1 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 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Klotho Brands Limited (formerly known as Lion/Heaven UK II Limited)

Claimant/applicant

Kevin-Gerald Stanford (formerly known as Kevin Gerald Stanford)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt of Court Application (civil) / Judgment on Contempt Application Following Hearing; Consequential Matters Adjourned

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent breached the terms of a court injunction by asserting rights or interests in shares contrary to a prior order
  2. 2 Whether personal service of the injunction order should be dispensed with
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's communications constituted contempt of court

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent, with actual knowledge of the 2022 injunction order, breached its terms by preparing and sending documents that, in substance, asserted rights or interests in the relevant shares, notwithstanding disclaimers. The court dispensed with personal service as the respondent suffered no prejudice, and procedural objections regarding service, joinder, and alleged fraud did not affect the enforceability of the order or the finding of contempt.

Court Disposition

Respondent found in contempt of court for breaching the injunction order of 5 April 2022.

Orders

  • Personal service of the 2022 order dispensed with.
  • Finding of contempt entered against the respondent for breaches by letter of 2 January 2025 and notice of 9 May 2025.