Advantage Insurance Company Limited v Alan Harris

A false statement verified by a statement of truth may constitute contempt where it is likely to interfere materially with the course or administration of justice. Actual interference need not be proved. The principle applies to a claims notification form sent under a pre-action protocol, even before proceedings are issued.

In sentencing, deliberate or reckless false statements will usually meet the custody threshold. The court must nevertheless first decide whether a fine is sufficient, by assessing culpability, harm and all relevant personal and procedural circumstances. An exceptional case may justify a fine rather than imprisonment.

Advantage Insurance Company Limited applied under Part 8 for the committal or other punishment of Alan Harris. The application arose from an unsuccessful personal injury claim following a vehicle collision. The County Court had dismissed the claim as fundamentally dishonest and ordered Mr Harris to pay costs.

Following a two-stage contempt trial, the court had found that Mr Harris knowingly made or authorised false statements in a claims notification form, Particulars of Claim and witness statement. The remaining issues were whether the claims notification form could support the administration-of-justice limb of contempt and what punishment was appropriate.

1. Contempt established. The claimant proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Harris knowingly made or authorised false statements and that each statement was likely to interfere with the course of justice. Actual interference was unnecessary; a propensity or tendency to interfere was sufficient. The applicable test required proof of falsity, likely material interference, and absence of an honest belief in the statement together with knowledge of that likelihood: [2024] EWHC 626 (KB) at [33]-[40].
2. The County Court’s findings and the trial transcript were admissible because the parties were the same, but the findings made on the civil standard did not bind the contempt court. The facts had to be investigated afresh against the criminal standard of proof: [2024] EWHC 626 (KB) at [29]-[32].
3. A claims notification form sent under the pre-action protocol for low-value road-traffic personal injury claims was capable of supporting contempt under CPR 81.3(5)(a), as well as under CPR 81.3(5)(b). Pre-action protocols form an integral part of the litigation architecture, and a dishonest statement made before proceedings may interfere with the administration of justice: [2024] EWHC 626 (KB) at [41]-[50].
4. Sentence. The discretion under CPR 81.9 required the court to consider whether a fine was sufficient before imposing imprisonment. The seriousness assessment involved culpability and harm, together with the circumstances identified in National Highways Ltd v Heyatawin. The guidance in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd v Khan did not make imprisonment inevitable.
5. Although the contempt was serious, the modest claim, uncomplicated nature of the dishonesty, Mr Harris’s naivety, recklessness rather than calculated dishonesty, ready admission, remorse, good character and the reduction of harm through dismissal of the claim and the costs order made imprisonment, including a suspended sentence, unjustified. A fine of £3,000 payable within six months was sufficient. Mr Harris was also ordered to pay Advantage’s costs, to be assessed if not agreed.