High Court Addresses Contempt of Court in Fraudulent Personal Injury Claims

Citation: [2023] EWHC 2931 (KB)
Judgment on

Introduction

In the High Court case of QBE UK Limited v Mark Raymond Hilton, Mr. Justice Constable handed down a judgment addressing the serious issue of contempt of court arising from fraudulent personal injury claims. The case serves as an illustrative example of the courts’ approach to sanctioning parties who make false representations to the court, particularly in the context of exaggerated or fabricated personal injury claims.

Key Facts

The defendant, Mark Hilton, brought forth a claim for an accident at work that took place on July 15, 2015, which escalated to a claim for damages in excess of £600,000. Investigations, including surveillance by QBE’s insurers, suggested that Hilton was engaging in fraudulent behavior, including making false statements and forging documents. His claim was struck out, following a failure to comply with court orders, and QBE was granted permission to bring contempt proceedings for 21 specified charges.

Hilton admitted to charges 1-16 and 18-21, which included making false statements about the severity of his medical condition and producing a forged birth certificate.

Several legal principles are crucial in understanding the judgment in this case:

  1. The Contempt of Court Act 1981 (CCA 1981) sets the maximum prison term for contempt of court at two years. This reflects the seriousness with which the court views acts of contempt, particularly in relation to fraudulent personal injury claims, as noted in FCA v McKendrick.

  2. In instances where a false statement verified by a statement of truth is deliberately or recklessly made, courts typically consider imprisonment to be the appropriate sanction, as emphasized in Liverpool Victoria v Khan & others.

  3. Contempt proceedings are also used as a deterrent to prevent future fraudulent claims which affect not only the parties involved but also the wider public and the justice system, as observed in Navigator Equities Ltd v Deripaska.

  4. Mitigating factors in sentencing can include an individual’s health, the impact of their imprisonment on others, sincerity of apology, previous good character, and the likelihood of reoffending. In Hilton’s case, the admission of contempt warranted a one-third reduction in the would-be sentence.

  5. Suspension of a sentence for contempt may be considered when a case contains “powerful factors” for justification, which may include serious adverse effects on dependents of the contemnor, established in Khan and endorsed by the Supreme Court in AG v Crosland.

Outcomes

Mr. Justice Constable sentenced Hilton to 10 months’ imprisonment, reduced from 15 months due to his admission of contempt. This sentence was immediate and not suspended, as there was no compelling mitigation, such as sole care for dependents, to justify suspension. The judgment indicates that anything less than an immediate custodial sentence would not effectively underline the gravity of Hilton’s contempt or deter similar future conduct.

Conclusion

The High Court’s decision in QBE UK Limited v Mark Raymond Hilton reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining the integrity of the legal system by taking a firm stance against fraudulent claims. The sentence reflects the seriousness of the offences and underscores that those who engage in such deceit will face significant consequences. The principles applied in this case serve as a stern warning to potential future wrongdoers and reiterate the courts’ willingness to use their powers to protect the judicial process from abuse. The Hilton case will likely resonate as a cautionary tale for those contemplating fraudulent actions within the context of personal injury litigation.