Super Max Offshore Holdings & Anor v Malhotra

Super Max Offshore Holdings & Anor v Malhotra

The Defendant was found in contempt of court beyond reasonable doubt for breaching multiple court orders by procuring and implementing dismissals, making false statements in evidence, communicating with employees in breach of injunctions, and interfering with the administration of justice by intimidating and victimising witnesses. The breaches were deliberate, continuing after the Defendant had notice of the orders, and included actions through agents. The Defendant's explanations were disbelieved or absent, and procedural objections as to service were dispensed with as no injustice was caused.

Parties
Claimant: Super Max Offshore Holdings; Claimant: Actis Consumer Grooming Products Limited; Defendant: Rakesh Malhotra
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application (civil/commercial) / Judgment After Contested Hearing
Outcome
Defendant found in contempt of court on the majority of grounds alleged.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Breach of Court Orders, Interference With Justice, Employment Contract, Corporate Governance
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Employment Law Contempt of Court Breach of Court Orders Interference With Justice Employment Contract Corporate Governance

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Super Max Offshore Holdings

Claimant

Actis Consumer Grooming Products Limited

Claimant

Rakesh Malhotra

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application (civil/commercial) / Judgment After Contested Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant breached court orders by procuring and implementing dismissals and other actions contrary to injunctions
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant made knowingly false statements in witness evidence
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant communicated with employees in breach of court orders

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant was found in contempt of court beyond reasonable doubt for breaching multiple court orders by procuring and implementing dismissals, making false statements in evidence, communicating with employees in breach of injunctions, and interfering with the administration of justice by intimidating and victimising witnesses. The breaches were deliberate, continuing after the Defendant had notice of the orders, and included actions through agents. The Defendant's explanations were disbelieved or absent, and procedural objections as to service were dispensed with as no injustice was caused.

Court Disposition

Defendant found in contempt of court on the majority of grounds alleged.

Orders

  • Defendant found in contempt in respect of Application 1 (a)-(f), (j), (k); Application 2; Application 3 (except grounds 11 and 12); and Application 4.
  • Retrospective dispensation with personal service of orders granted where appropriate.