Key Facts
- •Timothy Davies (Respondent) made allegedly false statements in two witness statements in proceedings between TB Property Investments (Plymouth) Limited and Episo 4 Pilgrim Holding SARL & Tristan Capital Partners LLP (Applicants).
- •The statements concerned Davies's assets and financial position, relevant to a security for costs application.
- •Davies subsequently corrected some statements, but the Applicants sought permission to bring committal proceedings against him for contempt of court.
- •The court considered whether there was a strong prima facie case that Davies knowingly made false statements and whether pursuing committal proceedings was in the public interest.
Legal Principles
Proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against a person who makes a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
CPR 32.14
Permission is required to make a contempt application for knowingly making a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth.
CPR 81.3(5)(b)
To grant permission, there must be a strong case that the statement was false and the maker knew it was false; it must be in the public interest; and several factors including the significance of the false statements and the potential impact on the administration of justice are considered.
Barnes v Seabrook [2010] EWHC 1849 (Admin); KJM Superbikes Limited v Hinton [2008] EWCA Civ 1280; Norman v Adler [2023] EWCA Civ 785
Committal proceedings should not be granted too freely and only when it is in the public interest and aligns with the overriding objective.
KJM Superbikes Limited v Hinton [2008] EWCA Civ 1280; Stobart v Elliott [2014] EWCA Civ 564
Outcomes
Permission to bring committal proceedings was refused.
While there was a strong prima facie case that Davies made knowingly false statements, the court found that pursuing committal proceedings would not serve the public interest, considering the facts of the case, including the subsequent corrections, the already significant costs and sanctions imposed, and the pressure on court resources. The court also considered that other avenues (like a Section 51 Senior Courts Act 1981 claim) were more appropriate for addressing wasted costs.