Landmark Space Limited v Jane Chilambe

Permission to bring contempt proceedings for an allegedly false affidavit requires a strong prima facie case, capable of proof to the criminal standard, that the statement was false and that the maker knowingly made it false. The court must also decide whether proceedings are in the public interest.

Where the alleged falsehood depends on an ambiguous question, the ambiguity may prevent the evidential threshold from being met. Contempt proceedings protect the integrity of the justice system, not private commercial or information-gathering interests. Satellite litigation should not proceed where the allegation is weak and had no practical consequence.

The claimant sought permission under CPR 81.3(5)(b) to bring contempt proceedings against the defendant. It alleged that she knowingly made a false statement in a July 2023 affidavit by stating that she had shared her login details only with the claimant’s IT department.

The claimant relied on evidence that a former colleague used the defendant’s username and password to access SharePoint and entered multi-factor authentication codes sent to the defendant’s mobile phone. The defendant said that she could not recall passing on the codes and that login details referred only to a username and password.

The central issues were whether there was a strong prima facie case of a knowingly false statement and whether contempt proceedings would be in the public interest.

1. Permission refused. The claimant failed to establish the necessary evidential threshold, and the circumstances did not justify contempt proceedings in the public interest.
2. Permission required a strong prima facie case, capable of satisfying the criminal standard of proof, that the defendant made an untrue statement and knew it to be untrue when made. The court also had to consider the public interest, including the allegation’s gravity, the statement’s significance, the maker’s state of mind, whether it was relied upon, and the resources required.
3. The case depended on the meaning of login details. In context, the phrase clearly included a username and password but did not clearly include a subsequently generated multi-factor authentication code. The wording was capable of different interpretations, which favoured the defendant at the permission stage.
4. Even if the answer were wrong, the claimant had to show that the defendant deliberately misled the court rather than made an honest mistake. The evidence did not establish a sufficiently strong prima facie case on that issue.
5. The public-interest requirement was also unmet. The claimant already believed that the defendant had supplied the code and possessed the relevant technical evidence. The affidavit had not misled it or affected its conduct. The underlying factual issues were likely to be examined in employment tribunal proceedings, making High Court contempt litigation disproportionate satellite litigation.
6. Contempt proceedings were not a means of pursuing private business, regulatory or information-gathering objectives. Permission was therefore refused.