Gavigan v Norton

Permission to bring committal proceedings for false statements should be granted only where there is a strong prima facie case that the statement was false, was made without an honest belief in its truth and had the necessary potential to interfere with the administration of justice. The court must also consider the public interest, proportionality and the overriding objective. Mere carelessness, negligence or an incorrect understanding of the legal effect of a document does not meet that threshold. Satellite contempt litigation should not be permitted where it would obstruct the determination of the substantive proceedings or risk oppressive use of the court’s process.

The claimant sought permission under CPR 32.14 and CPR 81.18(3) to bring committal proceedings against the defendant. She alleged that the defendant had made or caused to be made false statements in defences, a Part 18 reply, an application relying on a draft amended defence and a witness statement.

The underlying claim concerned ownership of a caravan, rental income, bank accounts and assets allegedly controlled under powers of attorney. The central questions were whether the allegations disclosed a strong prima facie case of contempt and whether bringing separate committal proceedings would be in the public interest, proportionate and consistent with the overriding objective.

1. The application was dismissed. The claimant had not established a strong prima facie case, and it would be disproportionate and contrary to the public interest to pursue committal proceedings.
2. At the permission stage the court was not deciding whether contempt had actually been committed. It had to exercise the discretion with great caution, consider the public interest alone, and avoid determining the merits. Relevant considerations included the strength of the case, the circumstances in which the statements were made, the maker’s state of mind, persistence, delay, proportionality, likely costs, court time and the overriding objective.
3. Contempt required more than a statement being untrue. The maker must have known that the statement was false, or lacked an honest belief in its truth, and must have known that it was likely to interfere with the course of justice. Recklessness required conscious engagement with the issue and conscious uncertainty as to whether the statement was true. Carelessness, negligence or optimism was insufficient.
4. The allegations concerning the caravan did not meet the threshold. The defendant consistently believed that her late husband had bought it with his own money. Her later concession that it belonged to the claimant did not itself establish dishonesty or a likely interference with the administration of justice.
5. The defendant’s mistaken view that powers of attorney had ceased to operate did not establish absence of an honest belief in her statements. An incorrect understanding of the legal effect of a document was insufficient. Any dispute about the resulting duty to account was for the County Court in the substantive proceedings.
6. Separate committal proceedings would create undesirable satellite litigation while the substantive claim was pending. The court also identified a risk that the process was being used oppressively or vindictively. Granting permission would not further the overriding objective.