But I do think one has to have regard to the context in which this suggestion appeared. These were negotiations between the parties; they were rapidly moving negotiations, and it is clear the parties were attempting to deal with this very complicated matter of how to settle with Mr Bender without at the same time settling with Mr Koonmen, given the difficulties of the Settlement Agreement and the indemnity thereunder.
I asked Mr Baker during the course of his submission why, if he felt that this was a contempt of court or an attempt to pervert the course of justice he did not simply report the matter to the Attorney General himself on behalf of his client. His reply was I think quite correct, namely, that a referral from this Court would carry more weight.
I think it is for that reason that the Court must be careful in making referrals and should only do so where there is a clear and strong case such that the Court feels strongly about the matter and thinks that it should be looked into. I think that the Attorney General would pay great weight to the Court's views and, therefore, the Court must be selective in those matters which it refers.
I also have to bear in mind in this case that this is hard fought litigation over a very substantial quantity of money where allegations of contempt have been raised on both sides already and where we now have another one. One cannot exclude the possibility that this is all seen as being part of some important tactical battle. The Court must be careful not to lend itself to that sort of battle.
I think it is quite possible that the email of 16 th August does technically amount to a contempt of court or an attempt to pervert the course of justice. Whether it does or not in the circumstances I cannot possibly say; it would require detailed investigation and consideration.
But my view is that this is not a sufficiently clear case where I should add the Court's imprimatur to the allegation. It remains wholly open to Mr Koonmen, through Mr Baker, to make a complaint to the Attorney General who can then look into it and if he decides, first, that there is the evidence and, secondly, that the public interest requires it, he can prosecute and that matter can proceed. I do not think that this is one of those cases where it is so clear that the Court should add its weight to the allegation and, therefore, I do not propose to refer it to the Attorney General. But I make it clear that Mr Koonmen remains fully at liberty to bring the matter to the Attorney General's attention should he think fit.
In view of the fact that Mr Forsyth brought this matter on himself, I make no order as to costs.
No Authorities