Aviva Insurance Ltd v Ahmed

To establish contempt based on a false statement verified by a statement of truth, the applicant must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the statement was false, was likely materially to interfere with the course of justice, and was made without an honest belief in its truth, with knowledge of that likely interference. Contempt proceedings may proceed in the defendant’s absence where the defendant has knowingly disengaged, has had adequate notice, an adjournment is unlikely to secure attendance or representation, and the resulting disadvantage is outweighed by the interests of justice. Deliberately contrived accident claims are particularly serious contempts. A deterrent custodial sentence may be appropriate, especially where the entire claim is fraudulent and the conduct risks injury to innocent road users.

The insurers applied to commit the defendant for contempt of court. He had brought a county court personal injury claim arising from an alleged road traffic collision and verified statements asserting that the collision resulted from another driver’s negligence. CCTV evidence established that he had deliberately braked to cause the collision and had falsely described the circumstances. The county court had already found him fundamentally dishonest for the purposes of CPR 44.16(1).

The defendant did not attend the committal hearing and was not represented. The issues were whether the hearing should proceed in his absence, whether the elements of contempt were proved, and what sentence was appropriate.

1. Proceeding in absence. The court applied the principles summarised in R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 and the checklist in Sanchez v Oboz [2015] EWHC 235 (Fam). The defendant had been served, had sufficient time to prepare, had given no reason for non-attendance, and had deliberately remained disengaged. An adjournment was unlikely to secure attendance or representation. The CCTV evidence meant that his absence caused no serious forensic disadvantage. It was therefore just and consistent with the overriding objective to proceed.
2. Elements of contempt. Under CPR 32.14(1), as understood in Malgar Ltd v RE Leach (Engineering) Ltd [1999] EWHC 843 (Ch); [2000] FSR 293 and Axa Insurance (UK) Plc v Rossiter [2013] EWHC 3805 (QB), the insurers had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that each statement was false, would be likely materially to interfere with the course of justice, and was made without an honest belief in its truth, with knowledge of that likely interference. All three allegations were proved. The claim form allegation was not determined because it had been verified by the defendant’s solicitors’ authorised employee and added nothing to the other allegations.
3. Sentence. The court treated the conduct as a deliberately contrived collision and a completely fraudulent claim. Following the seriousness recognised in South Wales Fire and Rescue Service v Smith [2011] EWHC 1749 (Admin), and the distinction emphasised in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company v Bashir [2012] EWHC 895 (Admin), such conduct was more serious than dishonesty exaggerating a genuine claim. The risk of injury to innocent road users aggravated the underlying dishonesty. A concurrent sentence of nine months’ imprisonment was imposed on each of the three contempts, with a committal warrant to issue.

First instance committal decision. No appellate history was stated in the judgment.