Case Summary - Aviva Insurance Ltd V Sakyi [2022] EWHC 3267 (KB)

Facts

The respondent claimed that he was involved in a road traffic accident and suffered injury and damages to his motorcycle. He issued proceedings against the applicant, an insurer of the other driver’s vehicle, claiming damages for his personal injuries and sums for credit hire charges.

The insurer disclosed evidence that cast doubt on the veracity of the respondent’s claim. The evidence showed that the respondent had continued using his motorcycle despite his claims that it had been rendered unworthy and that he had incurred credit hire charges. It also showed that the respondent had made another unrelated claim for personal injuries and credit hire charges regarding an accident that was said to have involved the same motorcycle. The claim was discontinued because of that disclosure.

Eighteen months later, the insurer issued an application under s 81.3(5) of the Civil Procedure Rules for permission to bring contempt proceedings against the respondent on the grounds that he knowingly made false statements in his particulars of claim and witness statement. 

Legal principles

There is no test to be applied under s 81.3(5) of the Civil Procedure Rules . However, case law provides that it must be in the public interest for proceedings to be brought. 

As the insurer had delayed issuing the application for permission to bring the contempt proceedings, the court had to decide whether the public policy in the instant case outweighed any prejudice that the delay in bringing the proceedings had on the respondent.

Decision

The application was for permission to bring the contempt proceedings. No findings of contempt were therefore made. However, the court found that the evidence disclosed by the insurer was inconsistent with the account given by the respondent. The evidence gave rise to a strong case that the respondent knowingly advanced a false claim for credit hire charges and that, without the statements made by the respondent, no claim would have existed. 

Further, the court stated that if the falsehoods were established, they would show that the respondent knowingly put forward untruths that went to the heart of the proceedings and that it would be wholly wrong to treat them as unimportant.

In the circumstances, it was held that the importance of the alleged falsehoods to the claim and the seriousness of the breaches weighed heavily in favour of permission being granted.

Significance

The decision in this case amplifies the need for practitioners to scrutinise claims, whether on behalf of the claimant or defendant. 

For a claimant’s representative, while taking care not to imply that their client is lying, they will want to ensure that the implications of advancing a false claim can have serious consequences, even after a delay. In this case, the respondent argued that he did not understand the consequences of lying. The court rejected that contention.

From a defendant’s perspective, the court was troubled by the extreme length of time that the insurer took to bring the application. However, it found that permitting the application to proceed was a clear public policy. 

Caution should be taken because a finding that the public policy criteria have been met is fact-specific and there is a risk that extreme delay in bringing the application will outweigh public policy concerns in an individual case.