Articles

 

On 10 August 2004 the Claimant, Joanne Kirk issued proceedings against the Defendant for damages for personal injuries (namely a rear shunt injury) sustained in a minor road traffic accident, on 14 September 2001. Liability was not disputed. In January 2005 her solicitors served a schedule of damages, in which the Claimant was seeking compensation in a total figure of over £800,000. Substantial sums were claimed for past and future loss of earnings and for care and assistance.

 

On 16 February 2005, the Defendant's representatives paid £25,000 plus £9,000 to the CRU. Meanwhile, the Defendant's insurers carried out further investigations into the Claimant's complaints since they had suspected she had exaggerated the extent of her disability. 

 

The Defendant then served a Part 18 Request upon her, which included questions about the various statements she had made and the contents of surveillance recordings. On 1 December 2006 the Defendant's solicitors offered terms of settlement only on the basis that the Claimant accepted the sum in court. The bizarre outcome was that once the costs figures were agreed, for all intents and purposes, the Claimant recovered nothing from the litigation.

 

On 20 November 2007 the Defendant's solicitors applied for the action to be transferred to the High Court and for permission to bring proceedings against the Claimant for contempt of court, in making false statements without an honest belief in their truth, (CPR r 32.14). 

 

During the course of the proceedings for contempt that took place in April 2009, the Defendant’s insurer relied on documents, including the Claimant’s affirmation of her Incapacity for Work Questionnaire and her application for a disabled parking blue badge in her statement of truth, as well as the surveillance videos. The Defendants’ insurers submitted that Claimant’s own description of her disability must be dishonest, since there was no other reason why she would have agreed for the case to settle so suddenly. The Claimant maintained that she only withdrew because she was exhausted by it and that the videos did not impact on her decision whatsoever.

 

The applicable test involves the Applicant proving each of the three elements of contempt beyond reasonable doubt set out in the previous case of Caerphilly CBC v Hughes 06/12/05 (Unreported). From the outset, Mr Justice Coulson made it clear that discrepancies between a statement verified by a statement of truth, on the one hand and video evidence on the other will not automatically give rise to a contempt of court. Mr Justice Coulson did however conclude that “Mrs Kirk and her witnesses were aware of the relevance of their evidence and that they deliberately omitted any reference to the limitations on her lifestyle after the problems with her back in 1998…... This was a serious attempt at misleading the court”. 

 

The real matter of concern for Mr Justice Coulson was the statement made by Mrs Kirk in an Incapacity for Work questionnaire that she relied upon. It was concluded that Mrs Kirk deliberately chose in her detailed answers to only describe her bad days. The learned judge held that whilst it may not be contempt of court to exaggerate symptoms to an examining doctor, very different considerations apply to an application for state benefits of this kind, where express questions are asked about the variations in the stated condition and indeed, warns of the consequences of providing incomplete answers. He described Mrs Kirk as exaggerating her symptoms to a “significant and unconscionable degree”. The same was said in relation to her application for a disabled badge. 

 

Mr Justice Coulson concluded that contempt was proved, and Mrs Kirk was duly fined £2,500 and ordered to pay half of the Applicant’s costs, as well as her own.

 

In this case, Mr Justice Coulson not only provides a clear warning to those Claimants who are seeking to deceive, but provides a very detailed and useful analysis  into the factors that must be taken into consideration in such circumstances. This will no doubt be a  useful resource for any practitioner who practices in this field.

 

 

Mona Bayoumi