Legal News

Contempt—sentencing multiple contempts and costs recovery (Super-Max Offshore Holdings and another company v Malhotra)

Published on: 13 May 2020
Published by: LexisPSL
  • Contempt—sentencing multiple contempts and costs recovery (Super-Max Offshore Holdings and another company v Malhotra)
  • What are the practical implications of this case?
  • What was the background?
  • What did the court decide?
  • Case details

Article summary

Dispute Resolution analysis: This judgment dealt with sentencing for 31 particularised grounds of contempt, following protracted litigation between Super-Max Offshore Holdings and their former owner and later Executive Chairman, Rakesh Malhotra. Sir Michael Burton divided the 31 offences into five categories of seriousness, applying a combination of concurrent and consecutive custodial sentences before making an overall reduction to account for totality. The total sentence was 15 months—stayed pending appeal to the Court of Appeal. The judge rejected a submission that the court should take into account the impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) when sentencing, although it is not clear whether he was specifically referred to the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice in R v Manning [2020] EWCA Crim 592 where it was held that ‘the current conditions in prisons represent a factor which can properly be taken into account in deciding whether to suspend a sentence.’ Written by Alexander West, barrister, at Albion Chambers, Bristol. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents