AXA Insurance Limited v Mohammed Salhab & Ors

Contempt based on false statements requires proof to the criminal standard that the defendant signed a false statement, that it materially interfered, or was likely materially to interfere, with the course of justice, and that the defendant lacked an honest belief in its truth and knew of the likely interference.

In sentencing such contempt, the court should select the least severe sufficient penalty, assess culpability and harm, give appropriate credit for admissions and good character, and consider suspension carefully. False passenger and personal-injury claims are serious frauds which will ordinarily cross the custody threshold, although the sentence remains fact-sensitive.

The claimant insurer brought Part 8 contempt proceedings against three former co-claimants in County Court road-traffic litigation. The defendants had signed pleadings and witness statements asserting that two additional passengers had been present in the vehicle and injured.

Two defendants admitted the allegations. The third admitted dishonestly claiming to have been a passenger and injured, but disputed knowing that he was pursuing a personal-injury claim in his own name. The court first determined whether the disputed facts were proved to the criminal standard, then decided the appropriate orders under CPR 81.

1. Proof of contempt. The court applied the requirement that it must be sure to the criminal standard that the defendant signed a false statement, that the statement materially interfered or was likely materially to interfere with the course of justice, and that the defendant lacked an honest belief in its truth and knew of that likely interference. The claimant bore the burden of proof.
2. The second defendant’s absence from the hearing did not justify an adverse inference. The court was not sure that he was deliberately avoiding the jurisdiction or that he could have attended in person. Nor was the court sure that he understood that the documents and expert appointments advanced a personal-injury claim on his own behalf. He was therefore sentenced only on his admissions.
3. Sentencing approach. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, r 81.9, the available sanctions included committal for up to two years, suspension and a fine, but not a community punishment order. The approach was materially analogous to Crown Court sentencing: select the least severe sufficient option, determine whether the custody threshold was passed, impose the minimum commensurate custodial term where it was, and consider suspension.
4. Culpability and harm were the overriding considerations. The court also considered aggravating and mitigating factors, admissions, previous good character and the personal consequences of custody. False claims involving invented passengers were serious contempt and ordinarily crossed the custody threshold, although this case was below the most serious bracket because the accident was not staged and the sums claimed were relatively modest.
5. All three defendants received suspended committal orders. Mohammed Salhab received four months suspended for one year and a £2,500 fine; Mahmoud Aljubouri received three months suspended for one year and a £2,500 fine; Abbas Salhab received two months suspended for one year without a fine. The orders could be activated for further contempt or criminal offending during the suspension period.