Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd v Khan & Ors

Permission to bring contempt proceedings requires a strong prima facie case assessed on the evidence as a whole. Expert evidence need not, by itself, establish the allegation to the criminal standard at the permission stage. Where late evidence emerges, reasonable diligence is assessed in its procedural context, including when the need to investigate was reasonably triggered. If relief from sanctions is required, the court may apply the Denton questions. Interconnected contempt allegations against several defendants should ordinarily be tried together where that is overwhelmingly in the interests of justice. A strike-out application should be refused where the evidence discloses reasonable grounds for alleging contempt; the court should not conduct a mini-trial at that stage.

The claimant sought permission to add seven further contempt grounds against the first defendant in proceedings concerning alleged fabrication and use of false medical reports and witness statements in personal injury litigation. Permission had previously been granted against all four defendants on 33 grounds by HHJ Walden-Smith. The first defendant opposed the additional grounds and related evidence applications. The second defendant sought to strike out the proceedings against him, relying on late handwriting evidence. The third defendant sought to be tried separately. The issues were whether the additional grounds disclosed a strong prima facie case, whether the claimant had acted with reasonable diligence, whether late evidence should be admitted, whether the proceedings against the second defendant should continue, and how the allegations should be tried.

1. Additional grounds and evidence. Permission was granted in relation to Grounds C1–C7. The correct question was whether the combination of all relevant evidence disclosed a strong prima facie case to the criminal standard. It was not necessary for expert handwriting evidence alone to establish that standard. The evidence concerning the first defendant’s authorship and use of the disputed statements, together with the surrounding documentary and witness evidence, met that threshold.
2. The claimant had acted with reasonable diligence. Before the second defendant’s late evidence was served in October 2017, there was no sufficient trigger requiring investigation of the disputed signatures. Once that evidence was served, the claimant acted with reasonable diligence, albeit not at the earliest possible speed. If reliance on the further evidence required relief from sanctions, the relevant Denton questions were favourable and relief should be granted.
3. Second defendant. The strike-out application was refused. Quite apart from the absence of a formal application and supporting evidence, the new material did not exclude the second defendant as the author of the disputed statement. The evidence continued to disclose a strong prima facie case, and it remained in the public interest and consistent with the overriding objective for the proceedings to proceed to determination on the evidence.
4. Trial and costs. The committal hearing was adjourned to March 2018. The allegations against all four defendants and all the grounds were to be tried together. Their interconnections made a joint final hearing overwhelmingly preferable in the interests of justice. The third defendant’s proposal for a separate immediate trial was rejected. Costs were reserved.

Not an appeal. The judgment determined interlocutory applications in contempt proceedings for which permission had previously been granted by HHJ Walden-Smith.