Richard Achille v Philip Calcutt & Anor

Permission to appeal a refusal to permit contempt proceedings will be refused where the proposed grounds do not establish a properly arguable error capable of affecting the outcome. A claimant must overcome the requirement for a strong prima facie case and must also show that committal proceedings are in the public interest, proportionate and consistent with the overriding objective. Late evidence may engage the Denton principles, but the court may consider material placed before it while leaving any need to regularise the evidence unresolved. The protection of reputation is ordinarily pursued through defamation proceedings, not committal proceedings.

The claimant sought permission to appeal from the dismissal of his application to commit the former chairman of a tennis club for alleged contempt of court. The underlying application concerned allegations that emails about the claimant’s conduct had been altered and that a false account had been given about advice from the Lawn Tennis Association.

The court had previously refused permission to bring the contempt proceedings, dismissed the claim and certified the proceedings as totally without merit: [2024] EWHC 348 (KB). The claimant challenged that decision on three grounds: procedural error concerning affidavit evidence, failure to identify a strong prima facie case, and failure to recognise a public interest in the proceedings.

1. Permission refused. The application to appeal was confined to two allegations against the first defendant. The procedural ground failed. Although late evidence may engage the relief-from-sanctions principles in Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906, evidence is ordinarily supplemented by a further affidavit or witness statement rather than formally amended. The judge had taken into account all material placed before him, including the claimant’s skeleton argument.
2. The claimant’s additional material concerning events in 2013 was fresh evidence. Under r.52.21(2), it was not admissible on the appeal without permission from the appeal court. The lower court should not grant permission on the basis of fresh evidence where the applicant had not explained why it was not deployed earlier or shown that it could affect the assessment.
3. The claimant established a properly arguable criticism of two factual inferences concerning the purpose for which emails were collated and amended. That was insufficient. He had still failed to show a strong prima facie case that the first defendant acted with the intention of bringing about an objectively construed interference with the administration of justice. The further requirements of public interest, proportionality and compliance with the overriding objective remained unsatisfied.
4. The public interest ground also failed. Committal proceedings are not directed to protecting reputation; defamation proceedings are the proper vehicle for that purpose. The claimant had not shown that the earlier conclusion that the proceedings were not in the public interest was arguably wrong.
5. The court declined to extend the time for appealing substantially merely because costs and a possible civil restraint order remained to be decided. Under r.52.12 and r.52.15, any extension required proper grounds. Time for appealing was directed to run until 22 March 2024.

High Court (King’s Bench Division): The underlying contempt application was refused and dismissed, with the proceedings certified as totally without merit: [2024] EWHC 348 (KB). Permission to appeal was refused by Pepperall J in the present judgment.