Pertemps Medical Group Ltd v Ladak

Contempt of court for breach of an injunction must be proved to the criminal standard, with the burden on the applicant. The court should identify each alleged ground of committal and decide separately whether it is established. Where an injunction prohibits adverse or derogatory comments, the truth of the comments is immaterial to whether the prohibition has been breached. The relevant question is whether the communication falls within the terms of the injunction. A respondent’s motive or belief that the communication was justified may be relevant to penalty, but does not negate an intentional breach. The court found seven communications to be adverse or derogatory, or capable of bringing the claimant or protected individuals into disrepute, and held the defendant guilty of contempt.

Pertemps Medical Group Ltd sought findings that its former chief executive officer, Imraan Ladak, was in contempt of court for breaching interim injunctions made on 19 July 2019 and renewed on 31 January 2020. The injunctions prohibited adverse or derogatory comments about the claimant, its directors and employees, conduct capable of bringing them into disrepute, and certain harassment. They also imposed a notice requirement concerning intended protected disclosures.

The claimant relied on seven communications sent between December 2019 and May 2020. Mr Ladak accepted sending them but disputed their meaning, relevance and effect. The central issue was whether each communication breached the operative terms of the injunctions.

1. Contempt and standard of proof. The defendant was guilty of contempt of court. The claimant bore the burden of proof, and each alleged breach had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, namely to the criminal standard. Following the discipline identified in Sage v Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company [2017] EWCA Civ 973 at paragraph 35, the court considered each communication separately.
2. Meaning of the prohibition. Comments are adverse or derogatory where they lower the person concerned in honour or estimation, or are critical, disparaging or disrespectful. It is immaterial whether the allegations are true. The injunction prohibited the communications by reason of their character and likely effect, not by reference to their factual accuracy.
3. Application to the communications. The LinkedIn message to Louise Staden conveyed an allegation that she and John Staden were fraudsters. The messages to Spencer Jones alleged unlawful conduct, improper relationships and threats involving the claimant and its personnel. The January email alleged that the claimant had knowingly deceived the NHS and impeded a criminal investigation. The April and May emails alleged fraud, criminality, corruption and conduct associating Tim Watts with serious sexual offenders. Each communication was adverse or derogatory, or capable of bringing the claimant, its directors or employees into disrepute.
4. Mr Ladak’s asserted motives, including whistleblowing, shareholder duties, recording matters or communicating privately, did not provide a defence once the communications were proved to fall within the injunction. Motive could be relevant to sanction, but not to whether an intentional act breached the order.
5. The court therefore found all seven alleged breaches proved to the criminal standard. Sanction was adjourned to the hearing listed for 28 September 2020.