Accident Exchange Ltd v Broom & Ors

Contempt of court for false statements requires proof beyond reasonable doubt that the statement was false, materially interfered, or was likely materially to interfere, with the course of justice, and was made without an honest belief in its truth, with knowledge of that likelihood. Recklessness may suffice, but carelessness does not. A person who verifies a statement of truth, or gives materially false evidence on oath, may be liable even where the supporting exhibits form part of the verified statement. Systematic fabrication, alteration and presentation of rates evidence for use in credit-hire litigation constituted contempt where the participants knowingly adopted those practices.

Accident Exchange Limited brought committal proceedings against seven former employees of Autofocus Limited, a company that supplied basic-hire-rate evidence in credit-hire claims. It alleged that the defendants fabricated telephone enquiries and rates, altered reports and witness statements, verified false documents, caused documents to be verified, and gave false evidence on oath.

The proceedings followed investigations into Autofocus’s records and earlier litigation concerning the reliability of its evidence. Permission to bring the claim had been granted by the Divisional Court, and later strike-out applications were refused. The central issues were whether the alleged statements were false, whether the defendants knew of their falsity and likely effect on the administration of justice, and whether the allegations were proved to the criminal standard.

1. Applicable standard. Proceedings for contempt under CPR 32.14(1) require proof beyond reasonable doubt, in respect of each statement, of falsity; actual or likely material interference with the course of justice; and absence of an honest belief in the statement’s truth, together with knowledge of that likelihood. Recklessness may amount to contempt, but mere carelessness is insufficient.
2. False statements and evidence. A person who makes a false statement under oath about a material matter, knowing it to be false or not believing it to be true, is in contempt. The same applies where a person verifies a document with a statement of truth, or causes it to be verified, in those circumstances. The court rejected the submission that the statement of truth did not extend to attached exhibits. Darker v Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2001] 1 AC 435 concerned witness immunity and did not support that submission.
3. Findings. The evidence established an endemic system in which rates surveys were fabricated, telephone calls were not made, stock answers were inserted, reports were materially changed, and statements were placed in the names of persons who had not conducted the underlying work. The defendants knowingly participated in those practices and knew that the documents would be used in court. The conduct was capable of, and did, interfere with the administration of justice.
4. The First Defendant admitted the allegations concerning Archer v Skanska; the Second Defendant admitted the allegations concerning Joyner v Bramley and Thomson v Lansdowne; and the Third Defendant admitted all allegations against him. The allegations against the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Defendants were proved beyond reasonable doubt. The listed cases were only an indicative sample.
5. The Claimant was granted leave to discontinue the allegations against the First Defendant concerning Stewart v Rees and Joyner v Bramley. The judgment records the findings of contempt; sentencing was to follow.

• Divisional Court: Permission to bring the committal proceedings was granted on 1 February 2012. Later applications to strike out were refused on 30 July 2015, [2015] judgment citation not stated in the judgment.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The present court determined the committal claim and found the relevant allegations admitted or proved beyond reasonable doubt.