Aviva Insurance Limited v Kelvin Ankomah Sakyi

Permission to bring contempt proceedings for false statements requires a strong prima facie case to the criminal standard and a separate assessment of the public interest. The application must identify precisely which statements are alleged to be false and why. Delay is a significant consideration, particularly where contempt proceedings may be used for private enforcement purposes. Discrepancies in brief, pro-forma medical accounts will not ordinarily establish a prima facie case of contempt without supporting evidence. Serious falsehoods central to the claim may nevertheless justify permission despite delay, where the respondent can still receive a fair hearing.

The Applicant sought permission under CPR 81.3(5) to bring contempt proceedings against the Respondent, who had discontinued a County Court personal injury and credit-hire claim arising from a road accident. A Deputy District Judge had concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that the claim would have been found fundamentally dishonest under CPR 44.16. The present application alleged that the Respondent knowingly made false statements about the accident, his injuries, and the need for credit hire and related charges.

The central questions were whether the allegations established a sufficiently strong prima facie case to the criminal standard, whether proceedings were in the public interest, and what weight should be given to delay, discontinuance, lack of warning and the particularity of the grounds.

1. Applicable approach. Permission under CPR 81.3(5) requires a strong case to answer at the criminal standard and a judgment that proceedings are in the public interest. Relevant considerations include the significance of the alleged falsehoods, the alleged contemnor’s understanding of their likely use, the deterrent and protective purpose of contempt proceedings, the need to avoid prejudicing the substantive hearing, the limited relevance of penalty, warning, delay and the risk of harassment or private tactical use.
2. Particularity. Natural justice requires the application to identify the specific statements said to be untrue and the respects in which they were false. General allegations based on a large evidential bundle are inadequate.
3. Injury allegations. The alleged inconsistencies in the medical evidence did not approach the threshold. The forms were brief and pro-forma, the discrepancies were modest, and relevant evidence such as medical records and questions to the medical expert had not been obtained. The injury allegation was also too insignificant, in context, to make committal proceedings proportionate or in the public interest.
4. Accident and credit-hire allegations. The CCTV and documentary evidence established strong cases to answer that the Respondent knowingly advanced false accounts concerning the collision and the motorcycle’s alleged unroadworthiness and consequent need for credit hire, storage and recovery. Those matters were central to the claim and, if proved, involved serious false evidence affecting the heart of the proceedings.
5. Delay and discontinuance. The unexplained delay of at least 17 months, and potentially longer, was excessive. Contempt proceedings are not a means of enforcing civil costs orders and should not be used as a commercial lever. However, the Respondent could still have a fair hearing because the remaining allegations concerned discrete issues not dependent on deteriorating memory. Partial permission was therefore granted on Grounds 1 and 3. Costs were costs in the application.

The judgment records the following earlier procedural steps:

• County Court: The Respondent discontinued his personal injury and credit-hire claim shortly before trial.
• County Court, Deputy District Judge White: On 20 May 2021, the court considered an application under CPR 44.16 and found that the claim would have been found fundamentally dishonest on the balance of probabilities.
• High Court (King’s Bench Division): Permission was granted only for contempt allegations concerning the Respondent’s account of the accident and the motorcycle’s alleged unroadworthiness and related credit-hire claim. Permission was refused in relation to the injury allegations.