Accident Exchange Limited v George-Broom & Ors

Permission to bring contempt proceedings may be granted where the evidence is ostensibly strong and indicates that the proposed respondents knowingly presented a false picture to the court. The court should consider the significance, scale and systematic nature of the alleged misconduct, together with the public interest in possible criminal prosecution. The applicant’s private interest in pursuing proceedings may differ from the public interest in comprehensive investigation by prosecuting authorities. Where permission is granted, the court may direct urgent notification of the Attorney General and require clarification of any intended criminal proceedings.

Accident Exchange Limited sought permission to commence contempt proceedings against seven former employees of Auto Focus Limited. It alleged that they had knowingly given false evidence about local vehicle hire rates in numerous credit-hire claims, potentially affecting thousands of cases. The City of London Police had previously declined to investigate on the information then available. The application required the court to determine whether the criteria identified in KJM Super Bikes Limited v Anthony James Hinton [2008] EWCA Civ 1280 were satisfied and whether permission should be granted.

1. Permission granted. The court granted permission for Accident Exchange Limited to bring contempt proceedings.
2. The approach in KJM Super Bikes Limited v Anthony James Hinton [2008] EWCA Civ 1280, particularly the criteria set out at paragraphs 8 to 17, was applicable. The court considered that those criteria were fulfilled.
3. The evidence was ostensibly strong. There was a basis for alleging that the respondents knew that a false picture was being presented to the court. The allegations concerned a significant, systematic and potentially large-scale problem, and would not be trivial if proved.
4. The scale of the allegations distinguished the application from the confined circumstances in KJM Super Bikes Limited v Anthony James Hinton. The court made no finding on whether the allegations were true, but observed that alleged perjury on an industrial scale could give rise to a different public interest in conventional criminal prosecution.
5. The applicant’s substantial expenditure and interest in proceeding swiftly did not necessarily coincide with the public interest in comprehensive action by prosecuting authorities. The court nevertheless considered that delay at that stage would serve no one’s interest.
6. As a condition of permission, the court directed urgent service of the papers on the Attorney General. Within three months, the Attorney General or nominee was to state whether he wished to remain an interested party, intended to institute criminal proceedings, and considered that such proceedings would affect the contempt proceedings. The applicant was directed to proceed with service of the Part 8 claim form in the ordinary way. Costs were reserved to the committal application.