Pertemps Medical Group Ltd v Ladak

In committal proceedings, contempt must be proved to the criminal standard, with the burden on the applicant. The court should identify and determine each alleged breach separately. A respondent’s motive, belief that the conduct was justified, or belief that statements were true does not provide a defence once an intentional act breaches the injunction. A prohibition on adverse or derogatory comments may apply to emails sent to identified individuals; the communication need not be public. Words which lower a person or organisation in estimation may be derogatory whether true or false. A harassment allegation requires proof of the conduct and the specified purpose, including any purpose of obtaining a benefit.

Pertemps Medical Group Ltd v Ladak concerned committal proceedings arising from an interim injunction made on 19 July 2019. The defendant, a former chief executive of the claimant, was prohibited from making adverse or derogatory comments, bringing the claimant or its personnel into disrepute, and harassing individuals to obtain a benefit. He was also subject to conditions concerning protected disclosures.

The claimant alleged six breaches through emails sent between 14 and 30 August 2019. After several adjournments, the court proceeded initially in the defendant’s absence, but allowed him to attend on the second day, give evidence and make submissions. The central issues were whether the emails breached the injunction and whether the allegations were proved to the criminal standard.

1. The court proceeded in the defendant’s absence after considering the reason for non-attendance, whether an adjournment was likely to secure attendance, the possible length of any adjournment, the defendant’s wishes concerning representation, the interests of the claimant and the public in an expeditious determination, and the prejudice caused by proceeding. The repeated adjournments, the absence of an adequate reason, and the simplicity of the issues supported that course. The approach was consistent with the principles considered in Pirtek (UK) Limited v Robert Jackson [2018] EWHC 1004 (QB), Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust v Atwal [2018] EWHC 961 (QB), R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 (HL) and Sanchez v Oboz [2015] EWHC 235 (Fam).
2. Following the discipline identified in Sage v Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company [2017] EWCA Civ 973, the court addressed each alleged ground separately. The criminal standard applied, and the burden lay on the claimant.
3. The defendant’s motive could be relevant to penalty, but could not establish a defence based on an intention not to breach the order or on justification. The truth of an adverse or derogatory statement was immaterial. Comments alleging criminality, dishonesty, fraud, falsification and lies were plainly adverse or derogatory.
4. The fact that the communications were emails sent to particular recipients did not prevent them from breaching the injunction. The prohibition was not confined to public statements, and copying others could itself constitute the prohibited adverse comment.
5. Five emails breached paragraph 1.1 of the injunction. The first email also breached paragraph 1.2. The claimant did not prove beyond the criminal standard that the first email breached paragraph 1.3: the alleged benefit of clearing the defendant’s name was insufficiently clear, although harassment was arguable.
6. The reference to knocking on doors was treated as a reaction to personal service, rather than harassment for the purpose of obtaining a benefit. That observation was of marginal significance because other breaches were proved.
7. The defendant was guilty of contempt of court on six occasions. The question of sanction was adjourned for a further hearing.