- Contempt proceedings—in the public interest—false statements (Walsh v Decca Capital and Ahmad)
- What are the practical implications?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: This was an application for permission to bring contempt proceedings, made by Mr Ahmad, the respondent to an unfair prejudice petition under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006. Mr Ahmad argued that Mr Walsh had made knowingly false statements in a witness statement and points of claim on the unfair prejudice petition. Mr Justice Fancourt reviewed the new CPR 81 regarding applications to pursue contempt proceedings in private litigation and reiterated the purpose of contempt proceedings: vindication of the public interest in the honest conduct of litigation. Written by Matt Jackson, barrister, at Albion Chambers.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial