Verlox International Ltd & Anor v Igor Antoshin & Ors

Permission is required before private parties pursue committal proceedings based on allegedly false statements verified by a statement of truth. The court must exercise close control where the proposed proceedings would re-litigate disputes that should not be tried in the jurisdiction, consume disproportionate resources, or lack sufficient public interest.

Permission should be refused where the allegations are plainly without merit or the statements were insignificant. Even where an allegation is sufficiently arguable, proceedings may be stayed or struck out if their pursuit would conflict with the public interest or the overriding objective. A company without legal representation requires permission to conduct committal proceedings through its director, and an individual must be directly affected and suitable to act in the public interest.

The claimants brought committal applications against a defendant, solicitors and an expert. The applications alleged knowingly false statements in witness statements, affidavits or expert reports, including allegations concerning a disputed employment document, Russian law and the scope of the claimant’s former employment responsibilities.

The underlying proceedings had previously been held to have been improperly commenced in England, and the order permitting service out of the jurisdiction had been revoked. The court considered whether permission was required for the applications, whether the claimants had standing, whether the applications had sufficient merit, and whether pursuing them would be in the public interest and consistent with the overriding objective.

1. The court held that an allegation that a defendant authorised and caused a solicitor to exhibit an allegedly forged document fell within the same procedural control as an allegation that the defendant had personally verified the statement. It was unnecessary to decide whether the application formally fell within CPR 81.3(5)(b), because the court could control the process under its inherent jurisdiction.

2. Verlox had standing in principle as the effective party to the underlying proceedings, but could not pursue the applications while unrepresented. Under CPR 39.6, it required permission to act through its director, and that permission had been refused.

3. Mr Sychev lacked standing because he had not become an effective party to the jurisdiction or security for costs applications and was not directly affected by the alleged contempts. In any event, his conduct made him unsuitable to act as a guardian of the public interest.

4. The relevant principles were those identified in Barnes v Seabrook, KJM Superbikes Limited v Hinton and related authorities. The court had to consider the strength of the case, the significance of the alleged false statements, the alleged contemnor’s understanding of their likely use, the public interest, proportionality and the resources required. Truthfulness would ordinarily be determined at trial, and permission required great caution.

5. The allegations against the solicitors, Mr Riem and Professor Yarkov were without merit or concerned statements of opinion or permissible characterisation of evidence. Those statements had no material effect on the proceedings. Permission for the 8 July Applications was therefore refused and the applications were struck out as totally without merit.

6. The forgery allegation against Mr Antoshin was sufficiently arguable to avoid strike-out for lack of merit alone. Nevertheless, the underlying proceedings had never properly been within the jurisdiction, the alleged material had not been used in any determination, and pursuing the application would require a lengthy factual inquiry using scarce court resources. It was not in the public interest and was inconsistent with the overriding objective. The 22 August Application was stayed.

7. The request for referral to law enforcement agencies was refused.