Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Limited v Gail Avril Hamblett & Anor

Contempt based on false written or oral evidence requires proof that the statement was false, that it had or was likely to have interfered with the course of justice, and that the maker lacked an honest belief in its truth and knew of that likelihood. Each element must be proved to the criminal standard.

The deliberate presentation of a false but potentially relevant document in litigation constitutes interference with the course of justice, even if the document might ultimately have been exposed as false. Where contempt is substantial and a financial penalty is inadequate, custody may be appropriate, but suspension must be considered in light of personal mitigation and the impact of immediate imprisonment.

Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Limited applied for findings that Gail and Graham Hamblett were each in contempt of court. The allegations concerned witness statements and oral evidence given in Mrs Hamblett’s personal injury claim against Liverpool Wholesale Flowers Limited.

The underlying claim was dismissed after the County Court found it fundamentally dishonest. The central issue was whether the defendants knowingly relied on a doctored invoice said to evidence payment for flowers damaged in the accident, and whether their evidence about its delivery and authenticity satisfied the requirements for contempt.

1. Contempt test. The agreed test applied to both written and oral evidence. RSA had to prove that the statement was false; that it had, or if persisted in would have been likely to have, interfered with the course of justice; and that its maker had no honest belief in its truth and knew of that likelihood. Each ingredient required proof to the criminal standard.
2. Falsity and dishonesty. The court found the invoice to be a genuine earlier invoice which had been altered by inserting a later date and the words referring to broken flowers, and by removing the invoice number. The evidence of Mr Appleton and Mr Ennis was accepted. The evidence of both defendants was rejected as unreliable and dishonest. It was unnecessary to determine which defendant physically made the alterations because each knew that the invoice had not been delivered as alleged and was not genuine.
3. Interference with justice. The invoice went directly to Mr Appleton’s credibility and could have materially affected the underlying claim. The fact that the document was amateurish did not make interference impossible. A deliberate presentation of a false but potentially relevant document in litigation itself constituted interference with the course of justice.
4. Knowledge. Both defendants knowingly maintained the false account in written and oral evidence for the material purpose of undermining Mr Appleton and advancing the claim. The contempt allegations were therefore proved in each case.
5. Sanction. Applying the principles in National Highways Ltd v Heyatawin [2021] EWHC 3078 (QB) and South Wales Fire and Rescue Service v Smith [2011] EWHC 1749 (Admin), the misconduct was substantial and a financial penalty inadequate. The custody threshold was passed. Four months’ imprisonment was imposed in each case, suspended for one year, after considering the defendants’ serious personal circumstances and the potential consequences of immediate custody.

The judgment describes the underlying County Court proceedings but does not state an appellate history for this decision.