QBE UK Limited v Mark Raymond Hilton

Permission to commence committal proceedings requires a strong prima facie case, together with satisfaction that the proceedings serve the public interest, are proportionate and comply with the overriding objective. Each alleged ground must be considered separately. The court should exercise caution because contempt proceedings brought by private litigants are public in nature and must not become oppressive or vindictive. Nevertheless, allegations are not impermissibly duplicative merely because they arise from the same dishonest course of conduct. Separate statements may properly proceed where they show repeated dishonesty, different contexts, aggravating conduct or the effect on the value of the claim. Permission should be refused only for allegations that add nothing material or would unnecessarily burden the proceedings.

QBE UK Limited applied for permission to commence committal proceedings against Mark Raymond Hilton arising from a personal injury claim that had been struck out for alleged fundamental dishonesty. The proposed grounds concerned allegedly false statements about Mr Hilton’s physical limitations, care requirements and the value of his claim, together with the creation, service and use of an allegedly forged birth certificate and related evidence.

The application was adjourned from an earlier hearing to allow Mr Hilton, who was initially unrepresented, to obtain representation and provide medical material. At the resumed hearing, he conceded that several grounds could proceed and indicated that he intended to admit the grounds for which permission was granted. The central issues were whether there was a strong prima facie case on each ground and whether the grounds were sufficiently distinct to justify committal proceedings.

1. Permission test. The court was concerned only with whether proceedings should be brought, not whether contempt had been proved. Permission required a strong prima facie case on each ground, and satisfaction that the public interest required proceedings, that they were proportionate and that they complied with the overriding objective.
2. Separate consideration. Each ground had to be assessed separately because the strength of the evidence could differ between allegations. Public interest, proportionality and the overriding objective could be assessed more holistically, provided that the court addressed them as applicable to each ground.
3. Evidence and seriousness. The surveillance evidence provided a strong prima facie case that several statements about mobility, care and domestic activity were knowingly false or grossly exaggerated. The alleged forged birth certificate and the related statements likewise disclosed a strong prima facie case. False or fraudulently exaggerated personal injury claims were particularly serious because they undermine the administration of justice.
4. Duplicative allegations. A precisely duplicative ground might properly be excluded. However, allegations concerning separate statements, different contexts, repeated dishonesty, the procurement and deployment of a false document, or the financial consequences of a statement could properly proceed because they added material detail or aggravated the conduct. Applying that approach, permission was refused only for ground 17, which added nothing material to ground 19.
5. Permission was therefore granted in respect of all grounds except ground 17. Mr Hilton was directed to make any intended admissions within seven days. The parties were to liaise about a date for penalty, with mitigation material and skeleton arguments to be filed in advance.