Zurich Insurance Plc v Romaine

Permission to commence contempt proceedings for false statements must be granted cautiously. The applicant must show a strong prima facie case, but the court must also assess the public interest, proportionality and the overriding objective. The court should avoid determining disputed dishonesty or prejudging the substantive proceedings at the permission stage. A warning that contempt proceedings may be sought is a relevant, but not decisive, factor. Even where deliberate dishonesty is strongly indicated, permission may be refused where committal proceedings would not be proportionate or would not serve the public interest in the particular circumstances.

The claimant, an employer’s liability insurer, sought permission to commence contempt proceedings against the respondent after he discontinued a personal injury claim alleging noise-induced hearing loss. The claimant alleged that statements in a witness statement and replies to a request for further information were deliberately false.

An earlier paper application for permission had been refused. The claimant renewed the application orally and also argued that the earlier order could be revoked under the court’s case-management and inherent powers. The central issues were whether renewal was permissible and, if so, whether permission should be granted under the Civil Procedure Rules.

1. Renewal of the application. The court could revoke its earlier order and permit a renewed oral application. The distinction between applications concerning Senior Court proceedings and County Court proceedings created an apparent procedural inconsistency. In the circumstances, requiring an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a paper decision with brief reasons would not further the overriding objective. The powers under CPR 3.1(2)(m) and CPR 3.1(7) were sufficiently broad to permit renewal.
2. Permission framework. Permission to commence committal proceedings should be granted with great caution. The applicant must establish a strong prima facie case. The court must consider whether contempt proceedings serve the public interest, are proportionate and comply with the overriding objective. The alleged false statements must have been significant, and the defendant must have understood their likely effect and intended use. The court must give reasons without prejudging the substantive proceedings.
3. The court found good evidence of deliberately and dishonestly false statements, but made no finding that the statements were in fact false or dishonest. The claimant would still have to prove, to the criminal standard, that the respondent expressly confirmed the truth of the documents. The absence of an early warning of possible contempt was relevant but not decisive.
4. The public interest in deterring dishonest litigation was substantial, and the modest value of the discontinued claim was not by itself a sufficient reason to refuse permission. Nevertheless, the particular circumstances mattered. The claim had been discontinued promptly after the alleged dishonesty was exposed, the underlying hearing loss was not disputed, and the proposed proceedings were not proportionate. The renewed application for permission was therefore refused.

The claimant’s earlier paper application for permission was refused by the same judge on 17 August 2018. The present court permitted renewal but refused permission to commence contempt proceedings.