Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd v Thumber

Dishonestly presenting a wholly fabricated motor-insurance claim, supported by false witness statements, constitutes contempt of court. The court may impose immediate imprisonment where the fraud is deliberate, serious and calculated to undermine the administration of justice. In assessing sanction, the court may consider the scale and sophistication of the fraud, the value claimed, the impact on the court system and the need for deterrence. A general medical certificate stating that a defendant is unfit for work does not, without more, establish that he is unable to attend a committal hearing or justify a further adjournment.

The claimant insurer alleged that the defendant had fabricated a road-traffic accident claim, including substantial credit-hire charges, and had verified false statements of truth. The underlying civil claim was discontinued when the alleged other driver failed to attend trial, and the defendant was ordered to pay costs on an indemnity basis. The insurer obtained permission to bring committal proceedings.

At the committal hearing the defendant sought a further adjournment on medical grounds. The court rejected that application and considered the insurer’s engineering, insurance and documentary evidence, together with the defendant’s failure to provide any explanation. The central issues were whether the conduct amounted to contempt of court and, if so, the appropriate sanction.

1. Adjournment. A general practitioner’s certificates stating that the defendant was unfit for work, without functional details or evidence that he was unable to attend court, did not justify a further adjournment. The court also relied on the surrounding procedural history and the defendant’s failure to answer the allegations.
2. Contempt. The engineering evidence showed that the damage to the vehicles was incompatible with the alleged collision. The evidence also established links between the defendant and the alleged other driver. Further inconsistencies concerned the accident history, the alleged passenger, the air-bag deployment and the defendant’s financial means in relation to the credit-hire claim. Taken together, these matters established a fraudulent and fabricated claim.
3. The dishonest verification and giving of evidence in support of that claim amounted to contempt of court. The court treated the conduct as particularly serious because it involved an alleged accident which had not occurred, rather than merely exaggeration of a genuine claim.
4. Sanction. The seriousness of fraudulent insurance claims and false claims was reinforced by Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company v Bashir & Others [2012] EWHC 895 (Admin) and South Wales Fire and Rescue Service v Smith [2011] EWHC 1749 (Admin). In light of the deliberate fraud and the need to mark its gravity and deter similar conduct, the proper sentence was 12 months’ imprisonment.
5. When the warrant was executed, the defendant was to be informed that, under the law as it then stood, he would serve half the sentence and could apply to purge his contempt. If he were compulsorily detained under the Mental Health Act, that might provide a basis for applying to discharge the committal order.

This was a first-instance committal decision. The judgment records that the underlying civil claim in the Walsall County Court was discontinued on 1 May 2013, with indemnity costs ordered against the claimant in that action. Permission to institute committal proceedings was granted by Stuart-Smith J on 25 September 2013.