Haven Insurance Company Limited v Neil Higham
[2023] EWHC 3472 (KB)
Advantage Insurance Company Limited v Alan Harris
4 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 626 (KB)
High Court
A man made a false injury claim. The court found him guilty of lying but gave him a £3000 fine instead of jail time because he was sorry, didn't fully understand what he was doing, and had already been ordered to pay court costs. The judge considered the seriousness of lying to the court but also the circumstances behind the lie.
Key Facts
- •Alan Harris made a false personal injury claim against Advantage Insurance Company Limited.
- •The claim, arising from a minor car accident, alleged whiplash injuries.
- •Harris's claim was dismissed as fundamentally dishonest by the County Court.
- •Advantage brought committal proceedings against Harris for contempt of court.
- •Three grounds of contempt were alleged: false statements in a Claim Notification Form (CNF), Particulars of Claim, and witness statement.
- •Harris initially represented himself, later obtaining legal representation.
- •The High Court found Harris guilty of contempt on all three grounds.
- •The court considered whether a custodial sentence was justified, given the guidance in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd v Khan.
Legal Principles
For contempt, the court must prove beyond reasonable doubt: (a) falsity of statement; (b) likelihood of interfering with justice; (c) lack of honest belief and knowledge of likelihood to interfere.
Axa Insurance UK plc v Rossiter [2013] EWHC 3805 (QB)
Deliberate or reckless false statements in documents verified by a statement of truth usually meet the custody threshold for contempt.
Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd v Khan [2019] EWCA Civ 392
A false statement in a CNF (Claim Notification Form) can support a finding of contempt, even before proceedings are commenced.
Jet 2 Holidays Limited v Hughes [2019] EWCA Civ 1858
The court must consider whether a fine is sufficient before imposing a custodial sentence for contempt.
Attorney-General v Crosland [2021] UKSC 15
Outcomes
Harris found guilty of contempt of court on all three grounds.
Harris failed to challenge the evidence and admitted making false statements.
Fine of £3000 imposed, payable within 6 months.
The court considered the Khan guidance but found this to be an exceptional case due to Harris's naivety, remorse, and the fact that he had already faced adverse costs; a custodial sentence was deemed unnecessary.