Graham Loveday was involved in a road traffic accident in 2006 and pursued a claim against Edward Nield for damages for personal injury and loss.

Mr Loveday sought damages for a back injury and psychological injuries, which he claimed had significantly affected his life and ability to work.

He also claimed that since the accident he'd had to use a wheelchair if travelling long distances, had relied on help from his wife, Susan, and had a fear of travelling. Mr Loveday said since his accident he and his wife had been unable to go caravanning.

Mrs Loveday provided a witness statement in support of her husband's claims.

In January 2010 the matter proceeded to a final court hearing at which Mr Loveday was awarded £1,850 compensation.

Following the trial, Mr Neild's insurers, Acromas, employed a surveillance team, which showed Mr & Mrs Loveday preparing for a caravan holiday in Italy. Acromos also obtained copies of photographs which Mr Loveday had posted on Facebook of his 2,000-mile road trip.

Acromas subsequently issued an application for permission to bring contempt proceedings against Mr Loveday and his wife. It was suggested that Mr Loveday's evidence contained a number of false claims and parts were entirely fabricated.

Mr Loveday denied he had made false statements in his personal injury claim, but he was jailed for nine months, while his wife received a six-month suspended sentence.

Contempt of court

In the 2008 case of KJM Superbikes Limited v Anthony James Hinton, Lord Justice Moore-Bick confirmed that:

"Whenever the court is asked by a private litigant for permission to bring proceedings for contempt based on false statements allegedly made in a witness statement it should remind itself that the proceedings are public in nature and that ultimately the only question is whether it is in the public interest for such proceedings to be brought.

"However, when answering that question there are many factors that the court will need to consider. Among the foremost are the strength of the evidence tending to show not only that the statement in question was false but that it was known at the time to be false, the circumstances in which it was made, its significance having regard to the nature of the proceedings in which it was made, such evidence as there may be of the maker's state of mind, including his understanding of the likely effect of the statement and the use to which it was actually put in the proceedings.

"Factors such as these are likely to indicate whether the alleged contempt, if proved, is of sufficient gravity for there to be a public interest in taking proceedings in relation to it. In addition, the court will also wish to have regard to whether the proceedings would be likely to justify the resources that would have to be devoted to them."

Our view

Mr & Mrs Loveday both provided the court with witness statements containing a statement of truth. By signing the statement of truth, the person making the statement confirms that 'he or she believes that the facts stated are true.'

This recent case serves as a reminder to all those signing statements that if you deliberately make a false claim, or mislead the court, serious consequences can follow. It's imperative, therefore, that you check the statement thoroughly before signing it.

Tell us what you think

All documents should be read and used in accordance with the terms and conditions. This document is for your general information only and is not a detailed statement of the law. It is provided to you free of charge and should not be used as a substitute for specific legal advice. If you require specific legal advice please contact our helpline on 03700 86 86 86.