Barnes (t/a Pool Motors) v Seabrook & Ors

Permission to bring committal proceedings for false statements verified by a statement of truth, or a false disclosure statement, requires a strong case that the statement was false and known to be false when made. The decisive question is whether proceedings are in the public interest. Relevant matters include materiality, the maker’s understanding of the statement’s likely use, deterrence, proportionality, delay, warning and the resources required.

A private party in county court proceedings may apply directly to the Divisional Court for permission under the Rules of the Supreme Court; referral to the Attorney General is not compulsory. Serious and central falsehoods justified permission, but a long unexplained delay after the substantive claim ended could make proceedings oppressive.

Three claimants sought permission to commence committal proceedings arising from allegedly dishonest personal-injury claims in county court proceedings. Each allegation concerned false statements in documents verified by statements of truth; the third also concerned an allegedly false disclosure statement.

The court considered whether the claimants could apply directly to the Divisional Court, the criteria for permission, the relevance of Article 6, delay, and the procedural requirements for a committal application. In the first and third matters, surveillance and other evidence was said to show that the defendants had worked while claiming loss of earnings or disability. In the second, the court focused on the lengthy delay after settlement and a police investigation.

1. Permission was granted in the Barnes and South Wales Fire and Rescue Service applications, and refused in the Hill application. Lord Justice Hooper gave the judgment, with which Kenneth Parker J agreed.

2. A party alleging a false statement in county court proceedings may apply directly to the Divisional Court under the Rules of the Supreme Court for permission to bring committal proceedings. CPR rr 32.14 and 31.23 prescribe the route by which such proceedings may be brought; they do not remove that jurisdiction or compel a reference to the Attorney General. The relevant practice direction permits the court to select the course appropriate to the circumstances.

3. Applying the guidance in KJM Superbikes Ltd v Hinton [2008] EWCA Civ 1280, the court held that permission requires a strong case both that the statement was false and that the maker knew it was false. The ultimate question is whether pursuit of the contempt is in the public interest. Material factors include the statement’s significance, its intended and actual use, the alleged contemnor’s state of mind, deterrence, proportionality, and the resources required. The likely penalty has only limited weight.

4. Article 6 applies to committal proceedings as criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the court must bear in mind at the permission stage that contempt must ultimately be proved to the criminal standard, and must ensure fairness in the formulation and conduct of the proceedings.

5. Delay is a significant factor. Where falsity was known before the end of the substantive proceedings, a substantial later delay may make permission oppressive. That was decisive in Hill. By contrast, there had been no significant delay in Barnes or South Wales Fire and Rescue Service, and the defendants had been warned of the potential contempt allegations.

6. The court gave procedural guidance. The supporting statement must identify separately the critical false passages, explain why they were knowingly false, address materiality and delay, and be supported by an affidavit containing a chronology. Because permission is generally sought without notice, the applicant owes utmost candour. The court made directions in the first case to obtain admissions and address the defendant’s asserted ill health.

High Court (Administrative Court): This was a first-instance determination of three applications for permission to commence committal proceedings arising from concluded or substantially concluded county court claims. No appellate history is stated.