I'm interested in…

  • Strategy & Procedure
  • Catastrophic Injury
  • Professional Indemnity
  • Motor
  • Fraud
  • Disease
  • Liability
  • Commercial Insurance
  • Costs
  • Local Authority
  • Scotland

DO NOT PUBLISH - Personal injury: Contempt proceedings – surveillance evidence

AXA Insurance UK PLC v Rossiter
5.12.13
High Court (QBD)

Jamie Taylor reports on an unsuccessful attempt by insurers to commence committal proceedings which arose out of a claim for personal injury, following a road traffic accident.  The Judge was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent was in contempt of court. The case is also notable for highlighting that just because a statement is false, it will not automatically follow that it was made dishonestly i.e. it could have been a mistaken rather than a dishonest belief that led to the false statement.  Anyone considering contempt proceedings should not be put off by this decision but it might be useful to heed the warning within it that, falsity alone is insufficient and the applicant in any contempt proceedings must also discharge the burden of proving dishonesty.

By Jamie Taylor

This information is intended as a general discussion surrounding the topics covered and is for guidance purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. DWF is not responsible for any activity undertaken based on this information.

Top