Northern Lincolnshire & Goole NHS Foundation Trust v Kae Burnell-Chambers & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1901 (KB)
Landmark Space Limited v Jane Chilambe
17 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 987 (KB)
High Court
A company tried to get a former employee in trouble for allegedly lying in a sworn statement about sharing her work login details. The judge said the company didn't prove the employee knowingly lied, and that the case wasn't important enough to waste court time on, especially since the company already knew what happened.
Key Facts
- •Landmark Space Limited (Claimant) sought permission to commit Jane Chilambe (Defendant) for contempt of court.
- •The alleged contempt stemmed from a false statement in Chilambe's affidavit regarding sharing login details.
- •The false statement concerned whether Chilambe shared her multi-factor authentication (MFA) code with her superior, Lisa Farrell-Brown, who was dismissed and on garden leave.
- •Farrell-Brown used Chilambe's login details to access company data, potentially downloading thousands of files.
- •Chilambe and Farrell-Brown had both brought employment tribunal claims against Landmark Space Limited.
- •The claimant's initial focus was on the username and password, not the MFA code.
- •The question of 'login details' was ambiguous and potentially capable of multiple interpretations.
Legal Principles
In contempt proceedings based on false statements, the court must consider whether there is a strong prima facie case and whether it is in the public interest to proceed.
KJM Superbikes Ltd v Hinton [2009] 1 WLR 2406
A 'strong prima facie case' requires evidence strong enough to satisfy the criminal standard of proof.
Norman v Adler [2023] EWCA Civ 785
The court should filter out weak or tenuous cases, even if they might survive a strike-out application.
Ocado v McKeeve [2021] EWCA Civ 145
The court should consider the contemnor's state of mind, including whether the error was innocent or deliberate.
Frain v Reeves [2023] EWHC 73 (Ch)
Outcomes
Permission to bring contempt proceedings was refused.
The court found the claimant's case weak, citing ambiguity in the question about 'login details' and the lack of clear evidence that the defendant knowingly made a false statement. The court also considered the public interest, finding the application disproportionate and unnecessary given the ongoing employment tribunal proceedings and the claimant's possession of all relevant information.