Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust & Ors v Shaikh

Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust & Ors v Shaikh

The court found, to the criminal standard, that the defendant was responsible for the majority of the offending publications and actions, based on overwhelming inference from his modus operandi, recurring themes, and evidence linking him to the breaches, and thus in contempt of court for violating the injunction order of 9 May 2014.

Parties
Claimant: Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust; Claimant: Julie Rochelle; Claimant: Geoff Brown; Claimant: Ken Ali; Claimant: Michael Octave; Defendant: Javed Shaikh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Committal Proceedings / Judgment on Contempt Allegations
Outcome
Defendant found responsible for serious contempts of court for specified allegations; sanction to be determined at a later hearing.
Legal Topics
Breach of Injunction, Harassment, Libel, Online Publication, Evidence Standard, Modus Operandi
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Defamation Harassment Breach of Injunction Libel Online Publication Evidence Standard +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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust

Claimant

Julie Rochelle

Claimant

Geoff Brown

Claimant

Ken Ali

Claimant

Michael Octave

Claimant

Javed Shaikh

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Committal Proceedings / Judgment on Contempt Allegations

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached the injunction order of 9 May 2014
  2. 2 Whether the breaches amount to contempt of court
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is responsible for the offending publications

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, to the criminal standard, that the defendant was responsible for the majority of the offending publications and actions, based on overwhelming inference from his modus operandi, recurring themes, and evidence linking him to the breaches, and thus in contempt of court for violating the injunction order of 9 May 2014.

Court Disposition

Defendant found responsible for serious contempts of court for specified allegations; sanction to be determined at a later hearing.

Orders

  • Defendant found in contempt for allegations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45.
  • Sanctions to be considered at a later hearing.