Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd v Khan & Ors

Contempt of court consists in conduct which interferes with the administration of justice. For contempt based on a false statement verified by a statement of truth, the claimant must prove to the criminal standard that the defendant knew the statement was false, or was reckless as to its truth, and knew or was reckless as to whether it was likely to interfere with the course of justice. Mere carelessness is insufficient. The court must determine each allegation and each defendant separately. An adverse inference from a party’s failure to give evidence requires at least some evidence supporting the issue. Previous contempt may affect credibility, but cannot alone establish the present contempt.

The claimant sought committal proceedings against four defendants arising from a personal injury claim brought after a road traffic accident. The underlying claim involved an allegedly amended medical report, witness statements and signatures said to be false or forged.

Permission was granted for a total of 40 grounds. The court considered allegations concerning false statements, fabricated documents, forged signatures, recklessness by a medical expert, and alleged attempts to influence evidence. The central issues were whether the individual defendants had made or caused false statements, whether they knew or were reckless as to their falsity and likely effect on justice, and whether the allegations were proved to the criminal standard.

1. Applicable principles. Contempt is an interference with the administration of justice. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 32.14, contempt may arise from a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. The claimant had to prove each allegation to the criminal standard.
2. For the relevant false-statement contempts, the court had to be sure that the defendant knew the statement was false, or did not care whether it was true or false, and knew or did not care whether it was likely to interfere with the course of justice. Simple negligence or carelessness was insufficient. The court considered each ground and each defendant separately.
3. The court found that Mr Khan had fabricated or relied on false documents and statements concerning the amendment of the medical report, and had forged Mr Iqbal’s signatures. The proven grounds were B1, B4, B5, B8, B11, B12, C1, C2, C3, C4 and C7.
4. Dr Zafar was not shown to have acted dishonestly when producing the revised report, but he acted recklessly. He allowed material changes to be made without checking whether they were clinically justified, despite the stark conflict with his original report. Grounds B17, B18, B19, B21, B22, B24, B26, B30, B31 and B33 were proved.
5. The case against Mr Sultan failed. The evidence did not establish that he signed or adopted the statement, and his previous contempt could not prove the present allegations. The case against Mr Ahmed also failed; his conduct reflected inexperience and a mistaken assumption, not dishonesty or recklessness.
6. The claims against Mr Sultan and Mr Ahmed were dismissed. The claims against Mr Khan and Dr Zafar succeeded only to the extent of the specified proven grounds. The court adjourned consideration of sanctions and consequential orders.

Not stated in the judgment.