Brighton & Hove Bus & Coach Company Ltd v Brooks & Ors

Contempt of court requires proof beyond reasonable doubt that a statement or representation was false, materially likely to interfere with the course of justice, and made without an honest belief in its truth, with knowledge of that likelihood. The same approach applies to deliberately misleading representations made to experts in litigation, even where they fall outside Civil Procedure Rules 1998 rule 32.14. The court must assess the overall impression conveyed, rather than isolated words alone. General or subjective statements are insufficient where their alleged falsity is too imprecise or immaterial to establish contempt. A genuine underlying claim may coexist with deliberate exaggeration of a particular aspect of disability.

The claimant, acting in practice through its insurers, applied to commit three family members for contempt of court arising from a personal injury claim brought by Mrs Daoud after a serious bus accident. The defendants were alleged to have presented Mrs Daoud to medical and care experts as having severely restricted mobility, despite surveillance evidence showing substantially greater mobility.

The allegations concerned representations made during expert examinations, reports attached to the particulars of claim, and witness statements verified by statements of truth. The personal injury claim had settled for £40,000 before trial. The central issues were whether the representations were false, materially interfered with the course of justice, and were made dishonestly with the requisite knowledge.

1. Applicable test. The court applied the requirements identified in [2009] EWHC 703 (QB). The insurers had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the relevant statement or representation was made, was false, was likely to interfere with the course of justice in a material respect, and was made without an honest belief in its truth with knowledge of that likelihood. The approach applied both under Civil Procedure Rules 1998 rule 32.14 and under the general law of contempt.
2. The relevant representations conveyed an overall picture of very limited general mobility. The surveillance evidence showed that Mrs Daoud was substantially more mobile than had been presented to the experts. The court rejected the broader allegation that the whole personal injury claim was fraudulent or grossly exaggerated. The underlying claim was genuine, and significant cognitive and psychological disability remained established.
3. Mrs Brooks and Mr Tadrous had deliberately connived in presenting a false picture of Mrs Daoud’s general mobility. The contrast was too substantial to be explained by misunderstanding or oversight. They lacked an honest belief in the relevant representations and knew that, if maintained, they were likely to increase damages and interfere with the course of justice. It was unnecessary to decide whether they were under a duty simply to correct statements made by Mrs Daoud, because the evidence established their positive agreement in the presentation.
4. The witness-statement allegations failed because the statements were either true, insufficiently proved false, or too general and subjective to found contempt. The case against Mrs Tynan depended entirely on her witness statement and was dismissed.
5. Mrs Brooks and Mr Tadrous were found in contempt of court. The wider case and some specific counts failed. A further hearing was directed to determine the appropriate sanction.