Contempt Claim Dismissal Upheld in Richard Achille v Philip Calcutt Case

Citation: [2024] EWHC 524 (KB)
Judgment on

Introduction

In the case of Richard Achille v Philip Calcutt & Anor [2024] EWHC 524 (KB), The Honourable Mr Justice Pepperall considered an application for permission to appeal against the dismissal of a contempt claim. The underlying matter involved allegations of “doctoring” emails and false accusations that led to the applicant’s suspension and expulsion from a tennis club. This article provides an analysis of the decision, elucidating the legal principles applied and their relevance to the judgment.

Key Facts

  • Richard Achille alleged that Philip Calcutt and Jane Carrington of the Moseley Tennis Club were in contempt of court by altering emails and making false assertions to the police.
  • Mr. Achille’s application for permission to bring contempt proceedings was refused, and the proceedings were deemed “totally without merit.”
  • Mr. Achille sought permission to appeal the decision, focusing on allegations related to Mr. Calcutt but subsequently confined his grounds to specific claims against Mr. Calcutt.
  • The court considered Mr. Achille’s procedural errors, strong prima facie case, and whether the public interest would be served by allowing these proceedings.

Procedural Errors

The case touches upon the procedural aspect of contempt proceedings and the admissibility of evidence. The Honourable Mr Justice Pepperall contemplated whether the lower court considered the appellant’s “amended” affidavit, which aligned with the Denton principles (Denton v. TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906), and the Park v. Hadi case (Park v. Hadi [2022] EWCA Civ 581), which discusses relief from sanctions. Importantly, Pepperall clarified that amending evidence is typically handled through further affidavits or statements and is subject to court permission. The judge confirmed that all evidence available was considered, including that contained within Mr. Achille’s skeleton argument.

A Strong Prima Facie Case

The judgment addresses whether there was a strong prima facie case against Mr. Calcutt for contempt. This involves demonstrating a clear intention to interfere with the administration of justice. It was debated whether the court had correctly inferred Mr. Calcutt’s intention for editing the emails. The principles of how inference can be drawn were considered, guided by the defence’s own pleadings (reference to claim KB-2023-BHM-000211).

Public Interest

Mr. Achille’s argument that his human rights to protect his reputation were infringed was countered by the judge, emphasizing that defamation proceedings (not contempt proceedings) are the appropriate forum for addressing reputational harm.

Outcomes

  • Permission to appeal was refused.
  • The notion of the public interest in bringing committal proceedings was determined not to be engaged.
  • The court ordered that the time for appealing should run to 22 March 2024, allowing Mr. Achille 14 days from the handing down of the judgment to appeal.

Conclusion

In Richard Achille v Philip Calcutt & Anor, the court meticulously reviewed the procedural aspects, the existence of a strong prima facie case, and the notion of the public interest in relation to contempt proceedings. The outcome serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to procedural requirements, the need for clear evidence to proceed with contempt claims, and the appropriate avenues for vindicating one’s reputation. The decision underlines the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the justice system’s integrity by scrupulously applying legal precedents and procedural rules to determine the validity and merit of claims presented before it.