Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust v Atwal

Contempt of court may be established where a party deliberately gives false accounts of disability to experts, intending to interfere with the administration of justice, and where false statements verified by statements of truth are made without an honest belief in their truth and with knowledge of their likely effect on the proceedings. Each element must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In a complex committal application, the court should concentrate on the central dishonesty rather than adjudicate every alleged falsehood. A civil court may rely on medical records as hearsay evidence of the truth of statements recorded in them, subject to the statutory assessment of weight and appropriate caution. A defendant’s persistent non-engagement may justify proceeding in his absence where service is proved, an adjournment is unlikely to secure attendance or representation, and the interests of justice favour determination.

The Trust brought committal proceedings against the defendant after settling his clinical negligence claim. Liability for relatively modest hand and lip injuries had been admitted, but the defendant had advanced a claim exceeding £837,000 based on alleged severe disability, inability to work, need for daily care and psychiatric consequences.

After surveillance and social-media evidence contradicted those accounts, the defendant accepted an earlier Part 36 offer. The Trust alleged that he had deliberately misled medical and other experts and had verified false assertions in his witness statement and schedule of loss. The defendant did not engage with the committal proceedings or attend the hearing. The issues were whether the hearing could proceed in his absence and whether the alleged contempts were proved to the criminal standard.

1. Proceeding in absence. Applying the principles in R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 and the checklist in Sanchez v Oboz [2015] EWHC 235 (Fam), the court proceeded in the defendant’s absence. He had been duly served, had sufficient notice, had given no reason for non-attendance, had plainly waived his right to appear, and was unlikely to attend or be represented after an adjournment. The prejudice caused by further delay and costs also favoured proceeding.
2. False statements to experts. The applicable elements, illustrated by Airbus Operations Ltd v Roberts [2012] EWHC 3631 (Admin) and Homes for Haringey v Fari [2013] EWHC 3477 (QB), were deliberate deception of the expert, an intention to interfere with the administration of justice, and conduct having a tendency to do so.
3. Statements verified by a statement of truth. Under CPR 32.14(1), as explained in AXA Insurance UK plc v Rossiter [2013] EWHC 3805 (QB), the Trust had to prove that the statement was false, that it had interfered or would probably interfere materially with the course of justice, that the maker lacked an honest belief in its truth, and that he knew of that likelihood. Each allegation had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
4. The court treated the surveillance, social-media material, expert evidence and surrounding medical records as powerful circumstantial evidence. It found fourteen contempts proved, concerning false accounts of DJ work, courier work, driving, lifting, employment prospects, household assistance, care needs and psychological support. Other allegations were not proved or were not pursued.
5. Medical records could be admitted as hearsay under sections 1 and 6(5) of the Civil Evidence Act 1995. The court explained the scope of the observations in Denton Hall Legal Services v Fifield [2006] EWCA Civ 169 and held that a contemporaneous record could, in an appropriate case, be evidence of the truth of the recorded statement, subject to the statutory factors affecting weight.
6. The judgment recorded the findings of contempt and adjourned consideration of penalty to a later hearing.