Richard Achille v Philip Calcutt & Anor

Permission is required for a private contempt application alleging interference with the administration of justice unless the alleged conduct relates to proceedings already in existence. Permission is also required for an allegation that a party knowingly made a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth.

Permission should be granted only where there is a strong prima facie case, the public interest requires committal proceedings, the proceedings are proportionate, and they comply with the overriding objective. A difference in recollection or an honestly held account is insufficient for contempt. Delay, weak evidential links to the administration of justice, repeated litigation and disproportionate cost may justify refusing permission.

The claimant sought to commit the defendants, former officers of a tennis club, for contempt. He alleged that they selectively edited emails concerning his conduct at a junior tournament and falsely stated that the Lawn Tennis Association had advised the club to report him to the police.

The claimant applied to amend his contempt claim. The defendants applied to strike out or stay the proceedings. The central issues were whether permission was required under rule 81.3(5) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, whether permission should be granted, and whether the claim should proceed.

1. Amendment. The amendment was allowed. Although Part 8 claimants are not required to file Particulars of Claim, the claimant had been ordered to particularise his case. The amendments were made before permission had been considered and did not materially add prejudice. The principles in Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd v James Kemball Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 33 were applied.
2. Permission. Each allegation required permission under rule 81.3(5). Allegations 2, 3 and 6 concerned alleged interference with the administration of justice, but no relevant proceedings existed when the conduct occurred. The later issue of proceedings did not retrospectively bring the conduct within the existing-proceedings exception. Allegation 9 was, in substance, an allegation that the defendants made a false statement in a Defence verified by their solicitor. The requirement could not depend on how the allegation was drafted. The approach in Care Surgical Ltd v Bennetts [2021] EWHC 3031 (Ch), Verlox International Ltd v Antoshin [2023] EWHC 86 (Comm) and UK Insurance Ltd v Ali [2024] EWHC 30 (KB) was applied or endorsed.
3. Applicable threshold. Permission required a strong prima facie case, a public interest in committal proceedings, proportionality and compliance with the overriding objective. The relevant guidance in Stobart Group Ltd v Elliott [2014] EWCA Civ 564 and Berry Piling Systems Ltd v Sheer Projects Ltd [2013] EWHC 347 (TCC) was applied. For interference with justice, the claimant had to show an intention to bring about an objectively construed interference. For a false statement, he had to show falsity, actual or likely interference with the course of justice, and absence of an honest belief in truth. Recklessness meant making the statement without any idea whether it was true or false; carelessness was insufficient.
4. Application. The evidence did not establish a strong prima facie case. The email amendments were reasonably inferred to remove pejorative comments and third-party discussions while preserving the substance of the complaints. They were made when no proceedings were on foot and did not show an intention to interfere with justice. There was no evidence that the second defendant participated in the document, or that either defendant knowingly made a false statement about the LTA telephone conversation.
5. The public interest, proportionality and overriding-objective requirements also failed. The allegations had, at best, a tenuous connection with the administration of justice, concerned events almost a decade old, followed extensive related litigation, and were disproportionate. Permission to amend was granted, but permission to bring the contempt proceedings was refused. The proceedings were dismissed and certified totally without merit. The strike-out and stay application therefore did not require determination.