Kirk v Walton

Permission to bring contempt proceedings under rule 32.14 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires a cautious assessment. The applicant must show a strong prima facie case, without inviting a determination of the merits, and the court must consider the public interest and proportionality. Settlement of the underlying civil claim does not extinguish an alleged contempt. Where materially inconsistent verified accounts and surveillance evidence disclose a serious case, permission may be granted even though the claimant has explanations that must be tested at the substantive hearing.

The claimant brought a personal-injury claim following a minor road traffic accident. She alleged disabling fibromyalgia and claimed more than £800,000, including substantial losses of earnings and care.

The defendant's insurers obtained surveillance footage which they said was inconsistent with statements of truth in the claimant's pleadings, witness statements and response to a request for further information. The civil claim was later settled on terms under which the claimant received the money paid into court, subject to costs.

The defendant then obtained transfer of the case from Stockport County Court and applied for permission to bring contempt proceedings. The central issues were whether the evidence established a sufficiently strong case, and whether settlement, disclosure issues or delay made such proceedings inappropriate.

1. Application granted. Cox J held that permission should be given to commence contempt proceedings under rule 32.14 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

2. The court adopted the cautious permission-stage approach in Malgar Ltd v R E Leach (Engineering) Ltd 1999 WL 1048312 and Sony Computer Entertainment and Others v Ball and Others [2004] EWHC 1192 (Ch). The applicant had to demonstrate a strong prima facie case, but the court was not to conduct a general investigation or decide the claimant's defence at that stage. The court also had to consider the public interest, proportionality and the overriding objective.

3. The marked and prolonged contrast between the claimant's verified descriptions of severe disability and the surveillance footage, reinforced by the defendant's medical evidence, established a strong prima facie case. The allegations were neither tenuous nor argumentative. The footage was sufficiently lengthy, contemporaneous, representative and consistent to require a full investigation.

4. The seriousness of an allegedly dishonest personal-injury claim for more than £800,000 gave rise to a strong public interest in proceedings. The proposed proceedings were proportionate. The claimant's explanation, including variable symptoms and periods of inactivity, went to her defence at the substantive hearing rather than defeating permission.

5. Settlement did not extinguish any contempt. It would be contrary to the interests of justice to require litigants to keep the substantive action open solely to preserve contempt proceedings. The application was not an abuse of process, and the later-disclosed footage added nothing material to the earlier footage supporting permission. Directions for the ensuing hearing were to be agreed or determined.

• High Court (Queen's Bench Division): the defendant's application for permission to bring contempt proceedings was granted.
• Stockport County Court: the claimant's personal-injury action was settled by consent order on 26 June 2007.
• Stockport County Court: on 28 December 2007, the matter was transferred to the High Court for determination of the permission application.