Zurich Insurance Plc v Barnicoat & Anor

In a committal application based on allegedly false statements in personal injury proceedings, each element of contempt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Findings made in earlier civil proceedings may be persuasive, but they do not bind the court deciding contempt and cannot alone establish dishonesty. The court must assess the evidence independently. Contradictions, unusual circumstances and unreliable recollection may be insufficient individually, but their cumulative effect may satisfy the criminal standard. Where the evidence proves that claimed injuries were knowingly fabricated to obtain compensation, contempt is established even if the court cannot determine precisely how the underlying incident occurred.

Zurich Insurance Plc, the insurer funding the defence of proceedings brought against Cornwall Housing Limited, applied to commit Shaun Kevin Barnicoat and Philip Craze for contempt of court. The respondents had claimed damages after allegedly falling into an uncovered manhole and had supported their Particulars of Claim and witness statements with Statements of Truth.

The County Court dismissed the personal injury claims, finding them fundamentally dishonest. The respondents did not participate in the committal proceedings or attend the hearing. The issues were whether the court should proceed in their absence and whether Zurich had proved the alleged false statements, knowledge of falsity and interference with the course of justice to the criminal standard.

1. Proceeding in the respondents’ absence. Applying the factors identified in Sanchez v Oboz [2016] 1 F.L.R. 897, the court proceeded. The respondents had been properly served, had ample notice, had given no reason for non-attendance, and an adjournment was unlikely to secure their participation. Proceeding was consistent with the overriding objective in CPR 1.
2. Applicable standard and elements. Each alleged contempt had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The relevant elements were falsity, material interference with the course of justice, and absence of an honest belief in the statement’s truth together with knowledge of its likely interference, following AXA Insurance UK Plc v Rossiter [2013] EWHC 3805 (QB).
3. Earlier civil findings were persuasive but not binding. The court had to assess the evidence independently. Discrepancies did not necessarily prove dishonesty because honest recollection may vary and intoxication could affect memory. Nevertheless, the cumulative evidence, including the physical scene, the medical observations, the alleged injuries and the respondents’ explanations, proved to the criminal standard that the claimed injuries could not have resulted from the alleged incident.
4. The court was not sure beyond reasonable doubt that no incident at all had occurred, or that the respondents had not stumbled near the manhole. Ground 1 therefore was not proved. Grounds 2 and 3 were proved: both respondents knowingly made false statements about injuries they had not sustained, intending to obtain compensation. Their contempt was established.
5. The court noted the serious consequences ordinarily associated with fraudulent claims, referring to South Wales Fire and Rescue Service v Smith [2011] EWHC Admin 1749 and Lane v Shah [2011] EWHC 2962 (Admin). Sentencing was adjourned to allow the respondents an opportunity to obtain legal advice and make representations.

The underlying personal injury proceedings were dismissed by District Judge O’Neill in the Plymouth County Court on 18 May 2017, with findings that the claims were fundamentally dishonest. The present proceedings were a first-instance committal application in the High Court, not an appeal.