London Borough of Havering v Bowyer & Ors

A person may commit contempt of court by knowingly making or supporting a fraudulent claim, making a false statement without an honest belief in its truth, or dishonestly withholding a material fact in legal proceedings where the conduct interferes with, or attempts to interfere with, the administration of justice.

Under rule 32.14 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, contempt proceedings may be brought against a person who makes or causes to be made a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. The allegations must be proved to the criminal standard.

The claimant local authority applied to commit three defendants for contempt of court arising from a discontinued personal injury claim. The first defendant had claimed damages for an injury allegedly caused by a pothole. Earlier accounts stated that he had fallen from a wall, and the authority alleged that the claim was fraudulent.

The first and second defendants substantially admitted the allegations. The third defendant, the first defendant’s father, denied knowing that the claim was false or dishonestly supporting it. The court therefore determined whether the allegations against the third defendant were proved to the criminal standard.

1. The court accepted the legal principles advanced by the claimant. Contempt may arise where a person knowingly makes a fraudulent claim, makes or causes a false statement without an honest belief in its truth, or dishonestly fails to disclose a fact which would materially reduce the value of the remedy sought, thereby interfering with the administration of justice. Rule 32.14 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 also permits contempt proceedings for a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
2. The burden rested on the claimant, and the criminal standard of proof applied. The court had to be sure that the third defendant committed the alleged wrongs.
3. The third defendant’s good character was relevant both to the assessment of his credibility and to the likelihood that he had committed contempt. Nevertheless, the court found his evidence unconvincing. His account was inconsistent with the documentary evidence, the earlier medical and legal accounts of the accident, his involvement in the personal injury claim, and the circumstances surrounding its discontinuance.
4. The court found that the third defendant knew that the personal injury action was fraudulent and took active steps dishonestly to support it, including by making a witness statement verified by a statement of truth. His lack of a direct financial motive did not prevent the conduct from constituting contempt.
5. The third defendant was found guilty of contempt of court as alleged. The first and second defendants’ admissions were noted, and sentencing and costs matters were adjourned to the following day.

The judgment records that permission to bring the committal application had been granted by the Divisional Court on 3 February 2012. No appeal from an earlier merits decision is stated.