Egeneonu v Egeneonu & Anor

Relevant evidence is not automatically excluded because it was obtained unlawfully or improperly. The court must assess all the circumstances and decide whether admission would adversely affect the fairness of the proceedings. Fairness includes fairness to all parties, and may be affected by ambush, misuse of authorised procedures or conduct amounting to serious abuse of process.

Permission for a private party to pursue committal proceedings is governed by the public interest. The court should assess the strength and significance of the alleged misconduct, the alleged contemnor’s state of mind, the use made of the statement or conduct, proportionality, resources and the overriding objective. Permission should be granted cautiously, ordinarily only where there is a strong case.

The applicant sought permission to pursue committal proceedings against her husband and another respondent concerning alleged breaches of orders, interference with the administration of justice and false statements. The supporting evidence included transcripts of prison telephone conversations obtained after solicitors mistakenly treated an order as authorising disclosure of recordings or transcripts.

The court had to determine whether the transcripts were admissible and whether permission should be granted for the relevant committal allegations. The court also considered the respondent husband’s application to purge an existing contempt and case-management issues concerning litigants in person who are serving prisoners.

1. Admissibility. The transcripts were admitted. Relevance is the primary test. Relevant evidence is not automatically excluded merely because it was obtained unlawfully, improperly or in breach of Article 8 rights. The court may exclude it where, having regard to all the circumstances, admission would adversely affect the fairness of the proceedings. The approach under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and under rules 1 and 32.1 of the Civil Procedure Rules is broadly similar.
2. The obtaining of the transcripts resulted from mistake rather than deliberate dishonesty. They were relevant, sufficiently reliable, and capable of being challenged by the respondents. There was no trial by ambush. Exclusion would have prevented serious allegations from being pursued and would have been unfair to the applicant.
3. Permission for committal. Applying the factors identified in KJM Superbikes Limited v Hinton [2009] 1 WLR 2406, permission was granted. The evidence was strong on both the alleged acts and the respondents’ knowledge or intention. The allegations were serious, concerned a concerted attempt to mislead the court, and justified the use of court resources. The proceedings were in the public interest and were not shown to be counter-productive.
4. The husband’s application to purge his contempt was refused. His previous conduct did not demonstrate that release would secure the children’s return, and the court could not rely on his assertions without independent verification.
5. The court emphasised that litigants in person must receive documents in sufficient time to ensure a fair hearing, including where prison procedures delay post. Lack of representation may justify appropriate case-management allowances, but does not generally justify a lower standard of compliance with procedural rules.

First-instance decision. No appeal or earlier appellate stage is stated in the judgment.