Homes for Haringey v Fari

Permission to bring contempt proceedings should be granted only where there is a strong prima facie case, a sufficient public interest in investigation, and proceedings would be proportionate and consistent with the overriding objective.

At the permission stage the court must avoid deciding disputed facts. It may nevertheless assess the apparent strength of the case from the documents and other material before it. The public interest is particularly strong where an apparently extravagant or false personal injury claim may have undermined the administration of justice. A procedural defect may be waived where it causes no prejudice and the respondent has received full notice of the allegations.

Mrs Fari had brought a substantial personal injury claim against Homes for Haringey. The claim was struck out in the Central London County Court after the judge considered evidence suggesting that the alleged disability and care needs had been grossly exaggerated. The proceedings were transferred to the High Court after Haringey indicated that it wished to seek permission to commence contempt proceedings against Mrs Fari and Mr Fari.

The application was opposed. The issues were whether there was a strong prima facie case, whether the public interest required committal proceedings, and whether bringing them would be proportionate and consistent with the overriding objective.

1. Permission granted. The court granted Haringey permission to bring committal proceedings and directed that it would hear submissions on directions.
2. The governing approach was adopted from Kirk v Walton [2008] EWHC 1780 (QB). The court had to consider:
   • whether there was a strong prima facie case;
   • whether the public interest required the allegations to be investigated and, if appropriate, dealt with by the court; and
   • whether committal proceedings would be proportionate and consistent with the overriding objective.
3. The court was not determining disputed facts. The allegations remained to be investigated at a later stage. Nevertheless, the history of the litigation, the marked divergence between the pleaded account and the surveillance footage, and the findings of the county court judge established a strong prima facie case of extravagant exaggeration.
4. The public interest was substantial. False claims burden defendants, honest claimants and the court, and damage the openness, transparency and honesty on which adversarial justice depends. The principles stated in South Wales Fire and Rescue Service v Smith [2011] EWHC 1749 (Admin), and applied by the Supreme Court in Summers v Fairclough Homes Limited [2012] 1 WLR 2004, supported that conclusion.
5. The same considerations made committal proceedings proportionate, despite the personal and financial consequences already suffered by the respondents and their concerns about imprisonment and family circumstances. Cases are not dealt with justly where claims have been grossly exaggerated.
6. The original procedural defect was one of form only. Applying paragraph 16.2 of Practice Direction 81, the court waived it because the respondents had received detailed notice and suffered no prejudice.

The judgment does not state a prior appellate decision. It records that the underlying personal injury proceedings were dealt with by His Honour Judge Mitchell in the Central London County Court on 9 October 2012, where the claim was struck out and transferred to the High Court for consideration of contempt proceedings.