CARE SURGICAL LIMITED v PAUL SHANE BENNETTS

A deliberate or reckless false statement under oath, or deliberate concealment of material information from the court, may constitute serious contempt where it materially undermines the administration of justice. Sentencing requires assessment of culpability and harm, followed by consideration of whether a fine is sufficient. Imprisonment is a last resort, but may be required for deliberate contempt causing significant harm, particularly where the contemnor persists in falsehood and fails to remedy the consequences. Relevant mitigating factors include genuine remorse, co-operation, health, previous good character and the effect of imprisonment on dependent children or vulnerable adults.

Care Surgical Limited applied for committal of Paul Bennetts for contempt arising from evidence given at an earlier intellectual property trial. The allegation was that Mr Bennetts had falsely confirmed ECMG’s ownership of unregistered design rights and confidential information, and had deliberately failed to disclose a business sale agreement executed shortly before trial which purported to transfer those rights.

The application had been adjourned after procedural and medical applications. Bacon J had previously refused an application to strike out or stay the contempt proceedings and directed that liability and sentence be dealt with together. Mrs Justice Falk was required to determine whether the contempt was proved beyond reasonable doubt and, if so, the appropriate sentence.

1. Liability. The witness statement and oral evidence did not amount to a clear admission, so the court determined liability independently and applied the criminal standard of proof. The sale agreement transferred the relevant unregistered design rights and confidential information. Mr Bennetts knew or did not believe his evidence asserting ECMG’s ownership to be true, and wilfully failed to disclose the sale. Both alternative bases of the single contempt allegation were therefore made out beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Materiality and harm. The concealment caused the underlying trial to proceed on a wholly false basis. If the truth had been known, the trial and subsequent proceedings would have been avoided or conducted differently, with substantial costs and other prejudice resulting.
3. Sentencing principles. Applying the guidance in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited v Zafar [2019] EWCA Civ 392 and FCA v McKendrick [2019] 4 WLR 65, the court assessed culpability and harm, then considered whether a fine was sufficient. Imprisonment was a last resort. The court also considered the factors identified in Crystal Mews Limited v Metterick [2006] EWHC 3087, as summarised and supplemented in Asia Islamic Trade Finance Fund Limited v Drum Risk Management Limited [2015] EWHC 3748.
4. The contempt was deliberate, highly culpable and substantially aggravated by persistent lack of candour, misleading evidence, limited co-operation and failure to remedy the harm. The late purported admission was not genuine and attracted no reduction. Mr Bennetts’ age, health and the potential impact on his son and former wife were taken into account, but a fine was insufficient.
5. The minimum necessary sentence was twelve months’ imprisonment. It was not suspended. The court noted that genuine and effective future co-operation, combined with real contrition, could support an application under rule 81.10 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 for reduction or immediate release.

First-instance contempt decision. The judgment records that Bacon J had earlier refused an application to strike out or stay the contempt application and directed that liability and sentence be determined together.