(1) EDWARD NIELD (2) ACROMAS INSURANCE CO LTD
–v-
(1) GRAHAM LOVEDAY (2) SUSAN LOVEDAY (2011)
This is a cautionary case warning Claimant’s about the consequences of exaggerating their claim and then signing a Statement of Truth, especially where the Defendant has instructed surveillance agents!
Initial Claim
L1 was involved in a road traffic accident and brought a personal injury claim against the driver and first applicant (N). The second applicant – N’s insurer (A) – admitted liability. The claim continued on a quantum only basis.
L1 verified his claim and witness statement with statements of truth, claiming that the as a result of the accident, he had a painful soft tissue injury to his neck and lower back which prevented him from working or even driving. He often had to use a wheelchair as he could hardly walk and had great difficulty negotiating the stairs. His wife cared for him all of the time. He was frightened to go out and especially when he had to go in a car. His pastimes were affected as he could not go caravaning or work on cars and engines as he had done. He also claimed that he had gone back to his driving job on the day of the accident, following months of absence due to a hand injury and produced a letter from his employer in support. His wife – L2 – verified a statement supporting her husband’s claim.
N obtained surveillance evidence discrediting L1, proving that he was much more active and able than his claim suggested. When he saw this, L1 settled for substantially less than he had claimed, and agreed to pay N’s costs, which far outweighed the damages.
Contempt Proceedings
The applicants (N) applied the respondents (L1 and L2) to be committed for contempt of court, on the basis that L1′s claim was inflated and dishonest. During the proceedings, L2 admitted her contempt and said that she had known that parts of her statement were either not true or no longer true when she signed it. In contrast, L1 said that when he signed the statements he did not know what he was verifying.
HELD:
(1) L1 was guilty of contempt of court. The surveillance evidence proved him to be very far from the housebound invalid he had made out to be, showing him driving, walking unaided, climbing steps, going on a caravaning holiday and working on a vehicle. In fact, he had driven to and fromItalyon a holiday with L2, whereas his witness statement which said they had flown there, and that he had been pushed in a wheelchair through the airport. The letter from L1′s supposed employer was forged by him or L2. It was discovered that L1 had had many years of intermittent back problems, contrary to his witness statement which stated that they did not begin until two weeks after the accident. He had misled his solicitor who drafted his witness statement and it was clear that he knew exactly what his witness statement said – a draft of it was marked with many handwritten comments with information that only he could have known. Based on this, his assertion that he had not read what he signed was not true. L1’s solicitor had warned both of them in writing of the risks of signing something which they did not believe and that this could result in imprisonment for contempt. Although there was recent medical evidence stating that he was suffering from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, that did not mean that he had not read the documents or lacked the capacity to know whether they were true. L1 must have known that his false claims were likely to interfere with the course of justice.
(2) L2 deserved some credit for admitting her contempt. She also had several good character references which helped. By contrast, L1 had not only refused to admit his contempt, he had even attempted to continue with his fabrications whilst giving oral evidence.
The court took into account a number of factors including L1’s previous good character, the considerable financial and personal toll the proceedings had taken on them both, and their respective health problems. It was not the most serious of contempts but they had both been explicitly warned by their solicitor that they risked imprisonment if they signed something they knew not to be true.
The Application was granted and L2 was given a six-month suspended sentence and L1 was given a nine-month sentence.
