Haven Insurance Company Limited v Neil Higham

Sentencing for contempt involving false personal-injury claims requires assessment of culpability, intended or foreseeable harm, aggravating and mitigating factors, and any discount for admissions. False claims ordinarily cross the custody threshold because they undermine the administration of justice. The court must impose the shortest custodial term commensurate with the contempt. Suspension requires powerful factors, including serious effects on children or vulnerable dependants. Exceptional personal mitigation may justify suspension, even where immediate imprisonment would otherwise be appropriate.

The defendant admitted contempt after making false Statements of Truth in a personal-injury claim arising from a road traffic accident. He falsely represented that his injuries prevented him from working and claimed substantial future loss of earnings, although surveillance showed him working as a roofer.

The claimant obtained permission to bring contempt proceedings after the underlying claim was discontinued. The court determined the appropriate custodial sentence, the effect of the defendant’s early admission, and whether the sentence should be suspended in light of his role as sole carer for his young son.

1. The court found two contempts involving persistent dishonesty. The defendant had deliberately advanced false accounts of his symptoms, employment and loss of earnings. The fraud was valued at approximately £75,000, with the potential value possibly much higher.

2. The relevant sentencing approach required consideration of culpability, intended or foreseeable harm, aggravating and mitigating factors, and any discount for admissions. The two-year maximum under Contempt of Court Act 1981, s 14, was not reserved only for the most serious cases.

3. False claims of this kind ordinarily pass the custody threshold because they damage the administration of justice. The court applied the guidance in South Wales Fire & Rescue v Smith [2011] EWHC 1749 (Admin) and the seriousness principles in Liverpool Victoria Insurance v Khan [2019] EWCA Civ 392.

4. The shortest commensurate sentence was three months’ imprisonment. The defendant’s early admission entitled him to a reduction to two months.

5. Suspension required powerful and exceptional justification. Consistently with Liverpool Victoria Insurance v Khan [2019] EWCA Civ 392, as endorsed by the Supreme Court in AG v Crosland [2021] UKSC 15, the court considered the serious effect of imprisonment on others. By the narrowest margin, the defendant’s status as the sole carer of his young son and the likely severe impact on the child justified suspension.

6. The two-month sentence was suspended for one year.

The underlying personal-injury claim was brought in the County Court, later discontinued following allegations of fundamental dishonesty. Permission to bring contempt proceedings was granted on 10 July 2023. This judgment determined sentence in the contempt proceedings.