Klotho Brands Limited v Kevin-Gerald Stanford

Klotho Brands Limited v Kevin-Gerald Stanford

Applications to set aside or stay sentencing do not affect contempt liability or sentencing, as any setting aside of the injunction would be prospective only. The respondent deliberately breached the injunction, causing serious harm and uncertainty. No valid mitigation exists, and purging contempt was not established. A custodial sentence is appropriate but suspended for two years on strict conditions.

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
17 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Contempt of Court Application / Sentencing Following Finding of Contempt
Outcome
Respondent sentenced to 32 weeks' imprisonment (16 weeks per count, consecutive), sentence suspended for two years on condition of compliance with injunction.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Corporate Authority, Fraud on the Court, Injunctions, Sentencing for Contempt
Civil Procedure Company Law Equity Contempt of Court Corporate Authority Fraud on the Court Injunctions Sentencing for Contempt

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 6 Authorities cited 16 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 / Sentencing Following Finding of Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sentencing should proceed in respondent's absence
  2. 2 Whether applications to set aside or stay sentencing affect contempt liability
  3. 3 Whether respondent's conduct amounts to contempt

Ratio Decidendi

Applications to set aside or stay sentencing do not affect contempt liability or sentencing, as any setting aside of the injunction would be prospective only. The respondent deliberately breached the injunction, causing serious harm and uncertainty. No valid mitigation exists, and purging contempt was not established. A custodial sentence is appropriate but suspended for two years on strict conditions.

Court Disposition

Respondent sentenced to 32 weeks' imprisonment (16 weeks per count, consecutive), sentence suspended for two years on condition of compliance with injunction.

Orders

  • Application of 9 September 2025 for stay dismissed as totally without merit.
  • Applications of 13 August 2025 and 4 September 2025 dismissed as totally without merit.