Harrington & Charles Trading Company Limited & 7 Ors v Jatin Rajnikant Mehta & 4 Ors

A passport order is an intrusive interim measure. It should be granted only for a limited period and normally as an aid to enforcing another court order. The applicant must show probable cause that the respondent will leave the jurisdiction unless restrained and that the respondent’s absence would materially prejudice the conduct of the claim.

Any continuation must be reasonably necessary and ancillary to the court’s functions. The court must balance the likely enforcement benefit against the interference with personal liberty and ensure that the order lasts no longer than necessary to obtain the required information.

The claimants sought continuation of passport surrender restraints imposed on four respondents in connection with ongoing substantive applications and further disclosure. The restraints had originally been ordered on 27 May 2022 and continued by consent until the hearing of this application.

The third respondent’s passport was held by the claimants’ solicitors. He had booked a family holiday to the United States before receiving notice of the proceedings and sought its return. The issue was whether his passport restraint should continue, having regard to the risk that he might not return and the possible prejudice caused by his absence.

1. Applicable principles. Passport orders should be confined to limited periods and normally assist the enforcement of another court order. The applicant must establish probable cause for believing that the respondent is about to leave the jurisdiction unless restrained, and that the respondent’s absence would materially prejudice the prosecution of the action.
2. Necessity and proportionality. Continuation of the restraint must be reasonably necessary and ancillary to the due performance of the court’s functions. Because the order interferes intrusively with personal liberty, it must last no longer than necessary to enable the claimants to obtain information to which they were entitled.
3. Application. The third respondent was clearly intending to leave the jurisdiction. The court considered his family, school-fee, immigration and accommodation connections with England, together with concerns about his earlier passport history and the alleged fraud. It nevertheless regarded a further three-week restraint as unduly intrusive, particularly because the holiday had been booked before notice of the proceedings and formed part of an established pattern of foreign travel.
4. The court also considered the disclosure position. Apart from a possible issue concerning JRD International Limited, the other family members appeared capable of providing any further disclosure without the third respondent’s presence.
5. Order. The third respondent’s passport was ordered to be returned for the holiday, on condition that he return it to his solicitors on returning to the United Kingdom, to be held in accordance with any further order. Existing restraints concerning respondents 1, 2 and 4 were continued pending judgment on the other applications.