QBE UK Limited v Mark Raymond Hilton
[2023] EWHC 2004 (KB)
Northern Lincolnshire & Goole NHS Foundation Trust v Kae Burnell-Chambers & Anor
24 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1901 (KB)
High Court
A mother and daughter were sued for dishonesty related to a medical negligence claim. The daughter admitted some wrongdoing; the court found enough evidence to pursue the mother for lying in court documents but not for helping her daughter lie.
Key Facts
- •The Claimant, Northern Lincolnshire & Goole NHS Foundation Trust, sought permission to bring contempt of court proceedings against Kae Burnell-Chambers (First Defendant) and Lynne Clifford (Second Defendant).
- •The case stemmed from a clinical negligence claim brought by the First Defendant, which was discontinued after the Claimant served video surveillance evidence.
- •The Claimant alleged that the First Defendant was fundamentally dishonest and that the Second Defendant interfered with the administration of justice and made false statements in her witness statement.
- •The First Defendant consented to the permission application, while the Second Defendant opposed it.
- •The video surveillance showed the First Defendant exhibiting less severe disability than claimed.
Legal Principles
Permission to bring contempt proceedings should only be granted if: (a) there is a strong prima facie case; (b) public interest requires the proceedings; (c) proceedings are proportionate; and (d) proceedings are in accordance with the overriding objective.
Kirk v Walton [2008] EWHC 1780 (QB), KJM Superbikes Ltd v Hinton [2008] EWCA Civ 1280, Barnes v Seabrook [2010] EWHC 1849 (Admin), Tinkler v Elliott [2014] EWCA Civ 564, Patel v Patel [2017] EWHC 1588 (Ch), Grosvenor Chemicals Ltd v UPL Deutschland Gmbh [2017] EWHC 1893 (Ch), Berry Piling Systems Ltd v Sheer Projects Ltd [2013] EWHC 347 (TCC)
Contempt by interference with the due administration of justice requires proof of an intention to interfere.
Connolly v Dale [1996] QB 20; Achille v Calcutt [2024] EWHC 348 (KB)
For contempt based on knowingly making false statements, it must be shown that the statement was false, known to be false, and likely to interfere with the course of justice.
Tinkler v Elliott [2014] EWCA Civ 564; Edward Nield v Loveday [2011] EWHC 2324 (Admin); Berry Piling Systems Limited v Sheer Projects Limited [2013] EWHC 347 (TCC)
Outcomes
Permission granted to bring committal proceedings against the Second Defendant for knowingly making false statements in her witness statement.
The court found a strong prima facie case based on the video surveillance evidence, contradicting the Second Defendant's statement. The public interest in upholding the integrity of the justice system outweighed other considerations.
Permission refused to bring committal proceedings against the Second Defendant for interference with the due administration of justice.
The court found the Claimant failed to establish a strong prima facie case for each particular instance of alleged interference. The evidence of the Second Defendant's presence at various appointments with experts, without further actions supporting the First Defendant's deception, was insufficient.