Abellio London Ltd v Ahuja & Anor

Permission to bring contempt proceedings may be granted where the applicant shows a strong case and it is proportionate and in the public interest for the proceedings to continue. Alleged fraudulent personal-injury claims can justify proceedings even where the underlying accident occurred and the sums claimed were modest. Delay must be assessed in context; fourteen months was close to the limit but not oppressive. A warning is not invariably required, particularly where represented parties plainly understood the allegation and persisted in the evidence. An order for costs is not punishment equivalent to contempt proceedings, especially where the proceedings would expose fraud publicly.

Abellio London Limited sought permission to bring committal proceedings against two passengers who had pursued whiplash claims arising from a minor bus collision. The claims were dismissed by District Judge Bell after CCTV evidence and expert evidence undermined the asserted injuries, and the judge found that both claimants had been fundamentally dishonest.

The application was made about fourteen months later. The respondents relied on delay, the absence of a warning, the costs order in the underlying proceedings, and the modest value of the claims. The central issue was whether the proposed contempt proceedings were proportionate and in the public interest.

1. Permission granted. The applicant established a strong case that the respondents had jointly advanced fraudulent injury claims through their statements, medical evidence and trial evidence. The merits themselves were reserved for the committal court.
2. The governing question was whether it was proportionate and in the public interest for the application to proceed. Fraudulent road-traffic claims engage a significant public interest because they increase costs borne by the public, insurers and service users. That interest is not confined to claims involving large sums.
3. Proceedings of this kind should be brought as soon as reasonably practicable. However, fourteen months was not oppressive in the circumstances. Decisions by a corporate applicant may require investigation, advice and consideration at senior level. The delay fell within the reasonable grey area, although it was towards the limit.
4. A warning is not an absolute prerequisite. KJM Superbikes Ltd v Hinton [2009] 1 WLR 2406 concerned a witness whose statement had a limited procedural purpose and raised the risk of improper pressure. Here, the respondents were legally represented, had seen the CCTV evidence and had been confronted through Part 35 questions. They could not reasonably have been unaware of the allegation, so no warning was required.
5. The respondents’ liability for costs in the underlying proceedings was not punishment equivalent to contempt proceedings. Costs ordinarily follow the result, whereas contempt proceedings serve a distinct public function and may expose fraudulent conduct publicly. The approach in Mandy Hill v Agnes Gough, where delay was oppressive, did not apply on these facts. The application was therefore allowed to proceed.

The judgment records that the respondents’ underlying road-traffic claims were dismissed by District Judge Bell at Guildford County Court on 4 February 2016, with findings of fundamental dishonesty. Abellio subsequently applied for permission to bring contempt proceedings. This judgment granted permission.