UK Insurance Limited v Syed Mohammed Yusuf Ali & Ors

Permission to bring contempt proceedings for knowingly false statements should be granted only where there is a strong prima facie case, the public interest requires proceedings, they are proportionate, and they comply with the overriding objective.

The court must assess each defendant and allegation separately. Relevant considerations include the statement’s significance, the strength of the evidence, persistence of the alleged lie, consequences already suffered, delay, likely costs and court time. Prison capacity is irrelevant to permission, although it may be relevant to any later sentence.

UK Insurance Limited sought permission to bring committal proceedings against three siblings arising from a staged road traffic accident. The underlying County Court trial had found that the defendants had participated in a dishonest scheme and had made false representations about who was driving and who was present in the vehicle.

The applications concerned alleged false statements and claim notification forms, together with alleged interference with the administration of justice. The central issues were the scope of the permission requirement under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 81.3(5), and whether permission was required in the public interest and was proportionate.

1. Permission test. Permission under rule 81.3(5)(b) requires a strong prima facie case, a public interest in bringing the proceedings, proportionality, and compliance with the overriding objective. The defendants conceded the strong prima facie case, so the court did not examine the merits further.
2. Nature of the allegations. The court must consider the true substance of an allegation rather than its label. An allegation that a defendant made a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth falls within rule 81.3(5)(b). Causing or encouraging another person to make a false statement may instead have as its gravamen interference with the administration of justice. The court did not decide whether permission was required for those interference allegations because the claimant did not seek permission in respect of them.
3. Public interest and proportionality. The relevant factors include the strength of the evidence, the circumstances and significance of the statement, the use made of it, the maker’s understanding of its likely effect, whether it was maintained to trial, consequences already suffered, delay, likely costs and court time. The court must stand back and assess the overall reality of the litigation. A false claim alleging injury may justify committal proceedings even if the claim was not pursued to trial.
4. Prison conditions. Pressure on the prison estate is irrelevant to whether permission should be granted. It may be relevant to the sanction imposed after contempt is proved.
5. Disposition. Permission was refused for Mr Ali’s four false-statement allegations and Ms Kauser’s first two allegations. Permission was granted for Ms Kauser’s allegation that she submitted a false injury claim notification form and for Ms Tul-Zahara’s allegation that she maintained a false account of the accident in support of a staged collision.

First-instance decision on applications for permission to bring committal proceedings.