QBE UK Limited v Mark Raymond Hilton

In civil contempt proceedings arising from a false or grossly exaggerated personal injury claim, the court must assess culpability and the harm caused, intended or likely to be caused. Deliberate or reckless false statements verified by a statement of truth will ordinarily justify imprisonment where a fine is insufficient.

Once the appropriate custodial term has been fixed, suspension requires a powerful or compelling reason. A serious effect on children or vulnerable adults in the contemnor’s care may justify suspension, but mitigation will usually have been reflected already in the length of the term.

The claimant insurer sought sanctions for contempt by the defendant, who had pursued a substantial personal injury claim arising from an accident at work. Permission to bring contempt proceedings had previously been granted on 20 of 21 grounds. The defendant admitted contempt on charges 1–16 and 18–21.

The hearing concerned the appropriate custodial term and whether it should be suspended. The principal issues were the seriousness of the false and exaggerated claim, the effect of a forged document, the defendant’s mitigation, and the application of established guidance on civil contempt sentencing.

1. Private applicant’s interest. A private applicant for civil contempt retains a legitimate interest in the outcome, including the deterrent effect of enforcement. That interest may extend to deterring similar conduct affecting the wider public, including the costs imposed by fraudulent insurance claims.
2. Seriousness and custody. The maximum term under section 14(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 was two years. Given the comparatively short maximum, the most serious category covered a broad range of conduct. The court assessed culpability and harm, and considered whether a fine would be sufficient. Deliberate or reckless false statements in documents verified by a statement of truth were ordinarily so serious that imprisonment was required.
3. Application. The contempt was exceptionally serious. Aggravating features included the attempt to support a claim exceeding £600,000, irrecoverable litigation costs, the marked disparity between the defendant’s actual abilities and his representations, and the calculated use of a forged birth certificate to mislead about medical records. Mitigating features included previous good character, ill-health, family circumstances, apology, positive references and admission of contempt. The admission attracted a one-third reduction.
4. Suspension. The appropriate term was 10 months, reduced from 15 months for the admission. There was no powerful or compelling factor justifying suspension. The sentence therefore required immediate custody, with half served in custody and the remainder on licence, subject to recall for breach of licence conditions.