Aviva Insurance Ltd v Kovacic

Contempt of court requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Where a claimant deliberately misrepresents continuing disability to medical experts, or verifies false statements in pleadings or witness evidence without an honest belief in their truth, contempt may be established if the conduct was likely materially to interfere with the administration of justice.

Discrepancies between a claimant’s evidence and surveillance do not automatically establish contempt. The court must assess the evidence as a matter of fact and degree, distinguishing understandable exaggeration from deliberate deception intended to increase damages. In this case, repeated and materially false accounts of mobility, walking aids, bending, carrying, shopping, childcare and driving justified findings of contempt.

The claimant insurer sought the committal of the defendant for contempt arising from his personal injury claim following a serious road accident. The defendant had claimed substantial damages for continuing disability and had verified his pleadings, schedule of loss and witness statement by statements of truth.

Following covert surveillance, the trial judge found that he had grossly exaggerated his disability and had deliberately lied to experts. The insurer subsequently obtained permission to bring contempt proceedings. The court was required to determine whether the earlier findings could be relied upon and whether specified statements and representations satisfied the legal tests for contempt.

1. Legal tests. Contempt based on deception of doctors or experts required proof that the defendant deliberately intended to deceive, intended thereby to interfere with the administration of justice, and engaged in conduct having a tendency to do so. Contempt under CPR 32.14(1) required proof that the statement was false, that it had or would probably have materially interfered with the course of justice, and that the maker lacked an honest belief in its truth and knew of that likelihood.
2. Each element had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, with the burden on the insurers. The court should concentrate on the serious nub of the complaint rather than adjudicate every detail of 69 allegations. Repeated similar statements could support an inference that a central false account was deliberate.
3. The earlier findings were treated as evidence, and as conclusive unless further material showed that a finding was unjustified. Since the proceedings were effectively criminal, the defendant remained entitled to adduce material casting doubt on a finding. The court nevertheless considered all the evidence, including the defendant’s evidence and the surveillance.
4. Differences between verified assertions and surveillance did not automatically amount to contempt. The issue was one of fact and degree. The court distinguished understandable exaggeration of a genuine condition from deliberate attempts to mislead the court and increase compensation.
5. The court found twelve allegations proved: false accounts of walking distance and use of a stick; deliberate presentation with a stick to an expert; false statements about bending, carrying heavy things, shopping and helping with the children; and false statements about driving and controlling the clutch. Other allegations were not proved or were not determined because they added nothing to the central case or could not be established to the criminal standard.
6. The judgment found that the defendant had deliberately and cynically lied about his continuing disability. The question of penalty was adjourned for a later hearing.

First-instance contempt proceedings. The judgment records that permission to bring the proceedings was granted by Sir David Eady on 5 May 2017, following earlier personal injury proceedings before HHJ Bidder QC.