Edward v Royal Borough of Greenwich

The applicant sought permission to bring a committal application under CPR Part 81 alleging that the respondent's Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence contained false and/or deliberately misleading statements verified by a statement of truth. The court applied the procedural and substantive tests in CPR Part 81, Practice Direction 81 and the authorities summarised in Tinkler & Anor v Elliott, requiring a strong prima facie case and proof beyond reasonable doubt of both falsity and knowledge of falsity, and consideration of the public interest and proportionality.

The court determined that the challenged passages were primarily legal submissions in a pleading rather than witness statements of fact and that, insofar as factual assertions were made, the applicant had not shown they were false or deliberately misleading. The court found the respondent had at all material times held information about both convictions, and accepted the respondent's explanation (in particular Ms Sewell's credible evidence) that an oversight as to the extent of the convictions led to the email of 23 August 2016. Given the absence of a strong prima facie case and the prior judicial review decisions (permission refused and appellate permission refused), the court concluded there was no public interest in allowing committal proceedings. Permission to bring the committal application was refused.

The applicant, represented in person, applied for permission to make a committal application under CPR Part 81 against the respondent and two named employees, alleging that the respondent's Senior Housing Lawyer knowingly verified false statements in the Acknowledgment of Service and Summary Grounds of Defence filed in his judicial review claim (CO/5374/2016). He relied on specified paragraphs (37(ii)(1), 38(iii) and 39(i)) of the Summary Grounds of Defence as containing false and/or deliberately misleading statements.

The court considered the procedural requirements of CPR Part 81, Practice Direction 81 and the guiding authorities (including Tinkler & Anor v Elliott and KJM Superbikes Ltd v Hinton), which require a strong prima facie case, proof beyond reasonable doubt if committal is to be permitted, and an assessment of whether bringing contempt proceedings would serve the public interest and be proportionate.

The factual background was that the applicant had two serious drug-related convictions (2009 and 2014), was on the respondent's housing register in 2012 but later excluded, and engaged in protracted correspondence and litigation challenging the respondent's housing decisions. The respondent's housing officers and legal team had exchanged emails, reviewed the applicant's criminal history and, after further enquiries, suspended and then excluded him from the housing register in October 2016. The applicant had pursued judicial review proceedings which were refused at the oral permission stage by HH Judge Wall QC and for which permission to appeal was refused by Gloster LJ.

The issues the court framed and decided were:

• Whether the applicant had made out a strong prima facie case that the specified paragraphs of the Summary Grounds of Defence contained false statements of fact or were deliberately misleading;
• Whether those statements, if false, were known by the alleged contemnors to be false at the time they were made;
• Whether the public interest and proportionality justified allowing contempt proceedings to be brought by a private litigant.

On the first issue the court held that the Summary Grounds of Defence was a pleading drafted by counsel and comprised largely legal submissions; the statement of truth attached to the document sensibly applied to factual assertions but not to legal argument. On the factual points the applicant failed to show falsity or deliberate misleading: the respondent had records and information about both convictions and explained the email of 23 August 2016 as an oversight by Ms Sewell, a finding the judge accepted as credible. On the knowledge requirement, the applicant had not shown deliberate knowledge of falsity beyond the required threshold. On public interest and proportionality the court took into account (i) the absence of a strong prima facie case, (ii) the existence of proper alternative remedies already litigated in judicial review proceedings which had been refused, and (iii) the risk of satellite litigation. For these reasons permission to proceed with committal was refused.

The application for permission to make a committal application is refused. The court held that the challenged passages were primarily legal submissions in a pleading and, insofar as factual assertions were made, the applicant failed to establish falsity or deliberate misleading beyond a strong prima facie standard. There was no public interest in permitting contempt proceedings, and the appropriate remedy for challenging the respondent’s decisions was judicial review, which had already been considered and refused on merit by earlier judges.

The judgment records prior proceedings: at an oral permission hearing on 9 November 2016 HH Judge Wall QC refused the applicant permission to apply for judicial review in CO/4519/2016 and CO/5374/2016. The applicant’s application for permission to appeal was refused by HH Judge Wall QC and a subsequent request to the Court of Appeal was refused by Gloster LJ (no neutral citation for the refusal recorded in the judgment).