Sandra Edith Dennerlein v Barclays Bank Uk PLC & Anor

Contempt proceedings are subject to strict procedural fairness because of their seriousness and the penalties involved. An application must identify the alleged contempt clearly and with sufficient particularity within its own terms. Unless dispensed with, it must be supported by affidavit or affirmation and personally served. Permission is required for allegations falling within CPR 81.3(5).

The court may strike out a contempt application for abuse of process, failure to comply with procedural requirements, or failure to disclose reasonable grounds for contempt. A false-statement contempt requires an allegation that the respondent knew the statement was untrue when made; recklessness or indifference to truth is insufficient. Where the defects are fundamental and persistent, a strike-out may be ordered without a mini-trial.

The claimant brought contempt applications arising from her underlying County Court claim against Barclays Bank UK Plc. The first application alleged that a Bank representative had made dishonest and misleading statements in witness statements. It was transferred from the County Court to the High Court for consideration of permission and further directions.

The claimant later brought a separate contempt application against James David Hart, counsel for the Bank, alleging that he had made false statements during recorded hearings. The Bank and Mr Hart each applied to strike out the relevant application. The claimant did not attend the hearing and had filed no substantive response. The issues were whether the applications complied with the procedural requirements governing contempt and whether they disclosed any reasonable basis for contempt proceedings.

The applications against Barclays and Mr Hart were struck out and each was certified as totally without merit.

1. Procedural fairness. Contempt proceedings require charges to be stated clearly and particularly, supporting evidence to be given by affidavit or affirmation unless the court directs otherwise, and personal service unless dispensed with. These are substantive safeguards, not technical pleading points. The principles were drawn from Navigator Equities Limited v Deripaska [2021] EWCA Civ 1799 and Ocado Group PLC v McKeeve [2021] EWCA Civ 145.
2. Application against the Bank. Permission had not been sought despite the allegations falling within CPR 81.3(5)(b). There was no affidavit or affirmation. The application was directed against the Bank although the allegations concerned a representative of its solicitors. The allegations were also broad, unclear and dependent on a witness statement rather than being particularised within the application. Those defects independently justified strike-out for abuse of process, lack of reasonable grounds and persistent procedural non-compliance.
3. Application against Mr Hart. The application lacked clear and self-contained particulars, supporting evidence and personal service. Its allegation that statements were made recklessly or without caring whether they were true was legally equivocal. Following Norman v Adler [2023] EWCA Civ 785, the allegation had to be that Mr Hart knew the statements were untrue when made. The application therefore disclosed no reasonable grounds for contempt.
4. The court accepted that it had inherent jurisdiction to impose a permission requirement in an appropriate case, but found it unnecessary to do so because the applications were overwhelmingly liable to be struck out. Any question of a Civil Restraint Order was left to the Designated Civil Judge.