Advantage Insurance Company Limited v Alan Harris
[2024] EWHC 626 (KB)
AXA Insurance Limited v Mohammed Salhab & Ors
17 February 2023
[2023] EWHC 413 (KB)
High Court
Three people lied about being in a car crash to get money. A judge said they were wrong, but gave them a warning instead of jail time because of some special reasons. The judge said that lying about car crashes is a big problem.
Key Facts
- •Contempt proceedings against three defendants (Mohammed Salhab, Abbas Salhab, Mahmoud Aljubouri) for knowingly signing false statements in County Court proceedings (F46YM185) related to a road traffic accident.
- •Defendants were co-claimants in the County Court case, claiming personal injuries and vehicle damage.
- •County Court proceedings concluded with a finding of fundamental dishonesty against all three defendants.
- •The High Court proceedings focused on whether the defendants knowingly made false statements and interfered with the administration of justice.
- •Mohammed and Mahmoud Aljubouri fully admitted the allegations.
- •Abbas Salhab made partial admissions, disputing the extent of his knowledge regarding his own personal injury claim.
- •Abbas Salhab did not attend the High Court hearing in person, claiming financial constraints, but participated remotely via a phone link.
- •The High Court considered whether to sentence Abbas Salhab based on all allegations or only the admitted ones.
Legal Principles
For contempt of court, the court must be satisfied to the criminal standard that the defendant made a false statement, that it interfered with the course of justice, and that the defendant knew it was false and likely to interfere with justice.
AXA Insurance UK Plc v Rossiter [2013] EWHC 3805 (QB) at [9]
In sentencing for contempt, the court should consider the least severe option sufficient to meet the objectives of punishment, considering culpability, harm, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the need for deterrent sentences.
Various High Court and Court of Appeal authorities, including South Wales Fire and Rescue Service v Smith [2011] EWHC 1749 (Admin) and Homes for Haringey v Fari [2013] EWHC 3623
False statements in road traffic accident claims are a serious form of contempt, often warranting custodial sentences; however, suspension and fines are possible depending on mitigating circumstances.
Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Limited v Zafar [2019] 1 WLR 3833 at [59] and other authorities
Outcomes
Mohammed Salhab: 4-month prison sentence, suspended for 1 year, and a £2,500 fine.
Acknowledged the seriousness of the offence but considered mitigating factors such as good character, early plea, remorse, and the impact of immediate custody on his dependants.
Mahmoud Aljubouri: 3-month prison sentence, suspended for 1 year, and a £2,500 fine.
Similar to Mohammed Salhab, but with a shorter sentence due to the involvement of only one false claim; mitigating factors included good character, early plea, remorse, and the impact on his family.
Abbas Salhab: 2-month prison sentence, suspended for 1 year.
Sentence was reduced due to the finding that he did not fully understand he was pursuing a personal injury claim on his own behalf; mitigating factors included age, ill health, and limited financial resources.