Tinkler & Anor v Elliott

Permission to bring committal proceedings for a false statement requires a strong prima facie case that the maker knew the statement was false, or was reckless as to its truth, and knew it was likely to interfere with the course of justice. Mere carelessness or an inaccurate statement does not suffice.

The court must also be satisfied that proceedings are in the public interest, proportionate and consistent with the overriding objective. It must consider the statement’s context, materiality, any innocent explanation, delay, and whether the proposed applicant is an appropriate guardian of the public interest. An application should not permit collateral re-litigation of concluded disputes.

Peter Elliott obtained permission from HHJ Pelling QC, sitting in the High Court, to bring committal proceedings against William Andrew Tinkler and Trevor Howarth concerning seven alleged false statements made in earlier litigation. The judge’s decision is reported at [2013] EWHC 797 (QB).

The allegations concerned statements about a Civil Aviation Authority investigation, alleged aviation regulatory breaches, an email said to engage a proviso in undertakings, and statements made when injunctions were sought. Mr Tinkler and Mr Howarth appealed, contending that no strong prima facie case of knowing falsity existed and that proceedings would not be proportionate or in the public interest.

The central issue was whether permission for any of the seven proposed committal allegations should have been granted.

1. Appeal allowed unanimously. Lady Justice Gloster, with whom Lord Justice Christopher Clarke and Lady Justice Arden agreed, held that none of the seven allegations should proceed to a committal hearing.

2. The applicable permission test required a strong prima facie case that the alleged contemnor knowingly made a false statement, or was reckless as to its truth, knowing that it was likely to interfere with the course of justice. The applicant also had to satisfy the court that proceedings were in the public interest, proportionate and consistent with the overriding objective.

3. The first-instance judge erred by treating inaccuracies, disputed assertions, and subjective opinions as if they supplied a strong prima facie case of deliberate lying. The statements had to be assessed in their full context, including their peripheral character, the Civil Aviation Authority’s decision not to take action, the availability of innocent explanations, and the absence of any apparent motive to deceive. In several instances, the relevant matter had been corrected or disclosed in the underlying proceedings.

4. Delay was material. The allegations concerned statements made years earlier, and their pursuit would in substance reopen the injunction proceedings, revive allegations already litigated or challenge the regulator’s decision by collateral means.

5. The court also held that Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 81.18 was not a formality. Its requirement that permission be sought from the court dealing with the proceedings in which the alleged false statement was made emphasised the need to assess the issue in the context of that litigation.

6. Finally, the public-interest and proportionality requirements were not met. Mr Elliott’s history showed a vexatious campaign against the Stobart parties and made him an inappropriate guardian of the public interest for these allegations. The court refused to entertain his proposed additional allegations, for which there was no cross-appeal.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the appellants’ appeal and set aside permission for all seven proposed committal allegations.

• High Court, Manchester District Registry: HHJ Pelling QC granted Mr Elliott permission to bring committal proceedings in respect of seven allegations: [2013] EWHC 797 (QB).