“STATEMENT OF TRUTH The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true. I am duly authorised by the Claimant to sign on his behalf. Full name: Faisa Arshad [signature] Date: 02-11-15 Messrs Asons Solicitors, of 120 Bark Street, Bolton BL1SAX, who will accept service of all proceedings herein at the above address.”
“18. It is noted that in the Claimant’s medical records, entry dated 2012, it states that the Claimant is a professional singer with a band. Please could the Claimant confirm if he is/was a professional singer: Response: I was never and have never been a professional singer. I worked for different companies for a living. The mention of a professional singer came about when visiting the doctor for a throat infection I mentioned that I couldn’t sing anymore. He must have made the assumption that I sang professionally and documented this in my medical records but this is not the case. 19. Does the Claimant play an instrument; Response: I used to play the Acoustic Guitar for soft music when I was about 19 years old. I sometimes do this on a very rare occasion now and again but it is not noisy by any means. 20. Does the Claimant perform with a live band; Response: No. 21. How often does the Claimant practice; Response: occasionally.”
“STATEMENT OF TRUTH I the Claimant believe that the facts stated in this statement are true. Full name: Mr David Romaine [electronic signature of David Michael Romaine] Date: 13.06.2016”
“6. I do not ride a motorcycle, nor do I participate in or attend motorcross or motorsport events. 7. I understand it has been noted in my GP records that I am a professional singer. This is incorrect as I have never been a professional singer. I believe the mention of a professional singer came about when visiting the doctor for a throat infection and I mentioned that I could not sing anymore. The doctor must have made the assumption that I sang professionally and documented this in my medical records. I used to play the acoustic guitar playing soft music when I was about 19 years old. I sometime do this on a very occasion now and again but it not noisy by any means. 8. To the best of my knowledge I do not participate in any other pastime, hobby or activity, which may have contributed to any hearing difficulty or medical issues relating to hearing loss or tinnitus.”
“STATEMENT OF TRUTH I the Claimant believe that the facts stated in this statement are true. Full name: Mr David Romaine [electronic signature of David Michael Romaine] Date: 01.08.2016 Asons Solicitors”
“The 501’s are a three piece rock n roll and rockabilly band. Two of them met through their passion of 50’s rock n roll and the music of that time. Initially the 501’s lead guitarist and vocalist David Romaine started out as a soloist and eventually joined a folk band where he played the big pubs and clubs all over the midlands. He shared the stages with the likes of Jasper Carrot and The Slade, but after a long time away from the music scene he came back with a new formed affection for rock n roll and rockabilly. Alongside Dave Hawkins who had also had a long standing love affair with the 50’s decided to learn the double bass. After some time of jamming in few music rooms the 2 became more and the 501’s began to gig regularly on the rock n roll scene.” “The 501’s are a three piece rock n roll and rockabilly band. Two of them met through their passion of 50’s rock n roll and the music of that time. Initially the 501’s lead guitarist and vocalist David Romaine started out as a soloist and eventually joined a folk band where he played the big pubs and clubs all over the midlands. He shared the stages with the likes of Jasper Carrot and The Slade, but after a long time away from the music scene he came back with a new formed affection for rock n roll and rockabilly. Alongside Dave Hawkins who had also had a long standing love affair with the 50’s decided to learn the double bass. After some time of jamming in few music rooms the 2 became more and the 501’s began to gig regularly on the rock n roll scene.”
“Whilst there is good evidence of false statements being made deliberately, the documents upon which the Statement of Truth appeared were not signed by the Defendant. This is not a sufficiently strong case bearing in mind the need for great caution before granting permission”
“32.14— False statements (1) Proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against a person if he makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. (Part 22 makes provision for a statement of truth.) (Section 6 of Part 81 contains provisions in relation to committal for making a false statement of truth.)”
“81.14— Application for permission (High Court, Divisional Court or Administrative Court) (1) The application for permission to make a committal application must be made by a Part 8 claim form which must include or be accompanied by— (a) a detailed statement of the applicant’s grounds for bringing the committal application; and (b) an affidavit setting out the facts and exhibiting all documents relied upon. (2) The claim form and the documents referred to in paragraph (1) must be served personally on the respondent unless the court otherwise directs. (3) Within 14 days of service on the respondent of the claim form, the respondent— (a) must file and serve an acknowledgment of service; and (b) may file and serve evidence. (4) The court will consider the application for permission at an oral hearing, unless it considers that such a hearing is not appropriate. (5) If the respondent intends to appear at the permission hearing referred to in paragraph (4), the respondent must give 7 days’ notice in writing of such intention to the court and any other party and at the same time provide a written summary of the submissions which the respondent proposes to make. (6) Where permission to proceed is given, the court may give such directions as it thinks fit, and may— (a) transfer the proceedings to another court; or (b) direct that the application be listed for hearing before a single judge or a Divisional Court.”
“… there is also a danger of reducing the usefulness of proceedings for contempt if they are pursued where the case is weak or the contempt, if proved, trivial. I would therefore echo the observation of Pumfrey J. in paragraph 16 of his judgment in Sony v Ball [Kabushiki Kaish Sony Computer Entertainment Inc v Ball[2004] EWHC 1192 (Ch) ] that the court should exercise great caution before giving permission to bring proceedings. In my view it should not do so unless there is a strong case both that the statement in question was untrue and that the maker knew that it was untrue at the time he made it. All other relevant factors, including those to which I have referred, will then have to be taken into account in making the final decision.”
“60. Because this form of contempt undermines the administration of justice, it is always serious, even if the falsity of the relevant statement is identified at an early stage and does not in the end affect the outcome of the litigation. The fact that only a comparatively modest sum is claimed in the proceedings in which the false statement is made does not remove the seriousness of the contempt.”
“Before the court can interfere it must be shown that the judge has either erred in principle in his approach, or has left out of account, or taken into account, some feature that he should, or should not, have considered, or that his decision is wholly wrong because the court is forced to the conclusion that he has not balanced the various factors fairly in the scale.”
“Discussion and Decision 19. When considering the alleged dishonesty of the defendant in the documents submitted in the course of the personal injury proceedings, I make no decision one way or the other about whether they were false or dishonest. That is not a decision for this court at the permission stage. Further, the fact that I refused the application on the face of the papers before the court on17 August 2018 does not affect my decision in this renewed application in an oral hearing. It is obvious without more that further evidence has been submitted by the claimant and that the court has now heard full oral submissions by the parties. This court has considered the application as a fresh exercise. 20. It does not follow that in all cases where a witness or a party may have dishonestly lied on the face of documents which they have signed as being true, that permission will be granted in favour of committal proceedings. Good, prima facie evidence of dishonestly false statements is the first step when considering an application for permission. Without it, the court need proceed no further. In this application, I remain of the view, having considered all of the evidence including the additional evidence dated after17 August 2018 , that there is good evidence of false statements having been made deliberately and dishonestly by the defendant. However, I make no findings of fact upon this. 21. There remains a substantial issue between the claimant and the defendant about whether the allegedly false statements were knowingly made by the defendant. The claimant's submissions based on the Civil Procedure Rules, that an electronic signature is sufficient to validate a document as belonging to its apparent author, are clearly correct. However, the defendant denies in his witness statement dated8 November 2017 that the signature is his and says that it was inserted into the document without his instructions. Further, he states that he did not see the statement or Part 18 replies before they were served. Whether this is right or not, I do not seek to determine at this permission stage. However, it will be for the claimant to prove to the criminal standard of proof that he, the defendant, was expressly confirming the truth of the contents of the documents. This does not detract from my assessment that the evidence against the defendant establishes a good prima facie case but it remains a significant factor. 22. It does not appear on the evidence that the defendant was warned that he may have committed a contempt of court such as to merit an application for committal to prison. The chronology of events is as follows. On13 June 2016 , the defendant filed his Part 18 responses. On1 August 2016 , the defendant's witness statement was filed. On16 February 2017 , the witness statements of the claimant's solicitors revealed that the defendant may not have been truthful in the context of the Part 18 responses and in his witness statement. On14 March 2017 , the claimant's solicitors made an application to strike out the claim on dishonesty grounds having shortly before given notice. Within days the defendant's solicitor indicating that the claim would be discontinued, which was confirmed on21 March 2017 . On12 September 2017 , the application for permission to commence committal proceedings was issued by the claimant. 23. There is no indication within the chronology of events or within the evidence that the defendant was warned of his potential committal for contempt of court. Of itself, this is not decisive, but it is a relevant factor. 24. The chronology also establishes that almost immediately after the application to strike out, based on the claimant's inquiry evidence was made, he discontinued proceedings. The claimant correctly observes that this may have been because of his asserted dishonesty being discovered. However, the fact remains that the proceedings were discontinued almost immediately. I accept that from the claimant's point of view that usually, when a false claim is discovered (if that is what happened here), the claim will cease and that should not be a bar to permission. 25. It is undoubtedly in the public interest that dishonest conduct in the course of proceedings, criminal or civil should not go without sanction - see for example South Wales Fire & Rescue Service v Smith[2011] EWHC 1749 (Admin) . However the court must still act cautiously; not all cases of alleged dishonesty are or should be sanctioned with committal proceedings. 26. I do not consider that the value of the claim being for up to£5,000 is a significant argument against the granting of permission. Such an argument is clearly offset by the public interest in sanctioning any such claims given the growing problem identified in the evidence of Simon Gifford's affidavit. 27. There is a clear and obvious public interest in seeking to bring to the attention of both legal professionals and the wider public, that dishonest claims for damages and personal injury actions are not without victims and comprise a growing problem as demonstrated in the claimant's evidence before this court. However, it is not all such potential claims that should lead to additional litigation in the public interest. 28. Having considered this application for permission in this oral hearing and having taken into account the additional evidence relied upon by the claimant, I have come to the clear conclusion that permission underCPR 81.14 should be refused. The balance of the public interest does not fall in favour of permission being granted in the circumstances of this particular case. Undoubtedly, the issues involved were and remain highly significant between the claimant and the defendant as private parties. However, in circumstances where the defendant may have dishonestly minimised potentially other causes of noiseinduced hearing loss, where such hearing loss is not itself in dispute, and when confronted with evidence which caused him to discontinue proceedings immediately, it is not in the public interest for permission to be granted for contempt proceedings to be issued. I am not persuaded that the proposed committal proceedings are proportionate. Accordingly, this renewed application for permission is refused”
“[19] …I think that in general a party who considers that a witness may have committed a contempt of this kind should warn him of that fact at the earliest opportunity (as the appellant did in this case) and that a failure to do so is a matter that the court may take into account if and when it is asked to give permission for proceedings to be brought.”
“12. The consequences of fraudulent claims are not limited simply to the costs of those claims which are not detected and paid when they should not have been. The impact of a “verify” rather than “trust” approach contaminates all claims, causing honest litigants’ claims to be slowed or adding costs to claims which are inevitably reflected in higher insurance premiums generally. Higher attritional costs are evidenced in the [Association of British Insurer] figures for 2013 which suggest that in NIHL claims the claimant solicitor received£3 in costs for every£1 that the claimant received in damages. Worse still, as stated in the report, “the normalisation of fraudulent behaviour is socially corrosive and erodes trust. 13. Until relatively recently, I believe that insurers have been perceived by many not only to be “fair game” but also to be a “soft touch”, because whenever they have discovered [] fraudulent claims, more often than not it is the “no-win, no-fee” lawyers who suffer financially and not the dishonest litigant”