The respondents initially made a claim for holiday sickness under the package travel regulations against the appellant. The respondents served witness statements, supported by a statement of truth, under the Pre-Action Protocol for Personal Injury Claims. The appellant subsequently discovered various social media posts made by the respondents contradicting the allegations made against them, the appellant rejected the claim and the respondents never issued proceedings. The appellant then brought proceedings seeking permission to commence committal proceedings.
The Court of Appeal held that the witness statements, in purported compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Personal Injury cases, is ‘capable of interfering with the due administration of justice for the purposes of engaging the jurisdiction to commit for contempt’ (at 36).
This judgment represents a significant development in civil litigation procedure. The decision confirms the that the High Court has power to commit for contempt if false statements of truth are made by a potential claimant, even if the claim has not been issued. As such, the decision significantly strengthens the courts’ jurisdiction over the behaviour and conduct of potential claimants in the pre-action stage and this will have far reaching consequences. Those acting for claimants will need to take extra care that any documents containing a statement of truth and served pre-action contain truthful evidence and they will likely have to provide warning to potential claimants in this regard. It is also likely that insurers will welcome this decision and will be more likely to issue contempt proceedings even at the pre-action stage where statements have been served under the Personal Injury Pore-Action Protocol if they suspect that the potential claim is based on false evidence.