Airbus Operations Ltd v QBE Insurance Company (UK) Ltd & Anor

Contempt proceedings are an appropriate means of controlling dishonesty in civil proceedings. The claimant must prove, to the criminal standard, the facts constituting contempt, the intention to interfere with the due administration of justice, and that the false statement was likely to interfere with the course of justice. Knowingly making false statements about symptoms or functional ability to support a damages claim may amount to contempt. Broad and unparticularised allegations about heads of loss may be insufficient.

The claimants applied to commit the defendant for contempt of court. He had brought a personal injury claim arising from an accident at work and alleged substantial continuing disability and consequential losses. The claim was compromised after surveillance evidence showed him undertaking strenuous activities inconsistent with aspects of his reported condition.

The application alleged that statements made to medical experts, in pleadings and in a witness statement were knowingly false and intended to support an excessive damages claim. The court determined which allegations were proved to the criminal standard and whether they amounted to contempt.

1. Legal principles. The court accepted, in the light of Fairclough Homes Ltd v Summers [2012] UKSC 26, that committal proceedings are an appropriate means of controlling and punishing dishonesty in civil proceedings. Contempt of court is a criminal offence. Under Re Bramblevale Limited [1970] 1 Ch 128, the claimants had to prove to the criminal standard the facts constituting contempt. They also had to prove the defendant’s intention to interfere with the due administration of justice and that persistence in the false statement was likely to interfere with the course of justice.
2. The court found that the defendant deliberately exaggerated his disability in statements to medical experts and in his witness statement. The surveillance evidence, read with the medical evidence and his explanations, established that he could undertake reasonably strenuous activity without the severe functional limitations he had described.
3. The defendant was therefore in contempt in respect of the proved allegations, including the witness statement and statements made to medical experts. One allegation was proved only to the extent of the exaggeration. Other allegations were not proved because the court could not be sure that the earlier account was false when given. The broad allegation based on the heads of loss was too wide to support contempt.
4. The court found contempt in the specified respects and invited submissions before deciding the appropriate order. It did not consider the remaining general counts necessary to determine.