Jet 2 Holidays Limited v (1) Karl Hughes (2) Laura Hughes [2018] EWHC 3716 (QB)

CASE DIGEST

The respondents booked an all-inclusive ten-day package holiday with the appellant at the Occidental Lanzarote Playa Hotel from 21 December to 31 December 2016. The claim made by the respondents was for food poisoning due to eating contaminated food or drink or swimming in the hotel's unsanitary swimming pool. Witness statements were exchanged in purported compliance with the Personal Injury Claims Pre-Action Protocol. Particulars of Claim were never received. 

It became apparent from images on the respondent's social media accounts that the family was in good health during the holiday. The appellant commenced proceedings under CPR Part 8, seeking permission to commence committal proceedings against the respondents for falsifying a statement of truth. 

At a preliminary hearing, HHJ Owen held that there was no jurisdiction to find contempt based on the original witness statements and that the application to add additional grounds of contempt to the committal proceedings was refused. HHJ rejected that the witness statements served as part of the PAP were witness statements within the meaning of CPR 32.14. HHJ said in paragraph [18] that: 

"A statement of truth within the ambit of CPR Pt 22 is concerned with a statement which is made and presented to the court within the meaning of CPR 32.14; having regard to the terms of CPR 22.1.1(c), 32.4(2) and 32.8 and the Practice Directions accompanying Pt 22 and Pt 32, it was clear that any such witness statement would be served within actual proceedings which would have been started within the meaning of CPR 7.2."

In paragraph 20, HHJ was not persuaded that the letters of claim and statements complained of are equivalent to the framework that is in place once proceedings have been started. HHJ used his case management powers, particularly paragraph 16.1 of PD81, to dismiss the proceedings summarily. HHJ Ownes dismissed the application for three reasons: 

1. It would be oppressive and contrary to the Overriding Objective to grant amendments to allow the committal proceedings to be continued in circumstances where they should never have been brought. 
2. The false statements were not "persisted in" for the purpose of using the court process to gain damages for a dishonest claim, as no claim for damages had been made. 
3. He was not persuaded that it would be in the public interest to allow the amendment.

The appellant appealed on the grounds that: 

1. HHJ Owen misdirected himself on the law in deciding that respondents could not be in contempt for the false statements in the original witness statements because those statements were made before proceedings were commenced. 
2. HHJ misdirected himself in law and made errors of principle in dismissing the application to amend. 

The respondents did not attend the appeal and were not represented. Their solicitors filed a skeleton argument saying they were not in a position to oppose and did not actively oppose the appeal. 

HHJ Godsmark granted permission to bring committal proceedings. It was thereby open to HHJ Owen to strike out the committal proceedings. There was no appeal from HHJ Godsmark's permission order, so HHJ Owen correctly recognised the only possible ground for striking out was that the committal proceedings were wholly invalid from the outset because the court lacked jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal agreed with HHJ Owen that the court did not have jurisdiction to grant committal proceedings as this is not granted by CPR 32.14. That is clear from paragraph 17.1 of PD 32, which requires witness statements to be headed with the title of proceedings. 

Irrespective of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court has an inherent power to commit for contempt, recognised by CPR 81.2(3) and PD 81 paragraph 5.7. The Common Law has always set the test for contempt. The test is whether the conduct interfered with the due administration of justice either in a particular case or as a continuing process (Attorney-General v Leveller Magazine Ltd [1979] AC 440). 

The Court of Appeal disagreed that the false statements made in the witness statements by the respondents had "...but the slimmest and tenuous relationship with the course of justice". It is well established that contempt can occur before proceedings begin (Attorney-General v News Group Newspapers plc [1989] 1 QB 110). 

In paragraph [46], the Master of the Rolls said that the respondent's decision not to bring a claim for damages after being confronted with the evidence of their untruthfulness: 

"Their decision not to do so does not detract from the fact that, if the original witness statements were knowingly untrue, as the appellant alleges, the respondents will have lied in order to procure money by deception pursuant to a conspiracy to defraud; nor does it detract from the fact that the appellant has had to face a claim with financial and reputational implications and to expend time and money to meet the claim."

The Court also clarified that contempt proceedings should be brought to the Administrative Court, not the High Court, where contempt is committed "otherwise than in connection with any proceedings." The Court remarked that this was not "satisfactory or convenient" and that the Civil Procedure Rules and a Practice Direction should be updated. 

Sir Terence Etherton MR then moved on to the application to amend. The Court stated in paragraph [52] that the Court did have jurisdiction to hear the contempt proceedings based on the original witness statements, holding that HHJ Owen made an error of principle. The Court of Appeal permitted the appellant to amend their grounds to include contempt. The Court unanimously allowed the appeal. 

References

Jet 2 Holidays Limited v (1) Karl Hughes (2) Laura Hughes [2018] EWHC 3716 (QB). Available at https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2019/1858 accessed 6 July 2023. 

Citation: Jacklin, D. 2023. Jet 2 Holidays Limited v (1) Karl Hughes (2) Laura Hughes [2018] EWHC 3716 (QB). Water Incident Research Hub, 6 July.