Jet 2 Holidays Ltd v Hughes & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, Company A, brought committal proceedings for contempt against the Respondents arising from claims made by the Respondents that they suffered sickness on a package holiday arranged by Company A. The claims alleged that the sickness was due to unhygienic conditions and poor food at the hotel where they stayed. The Respondents sent witness statements verified by a statement of truth before any formal proceedings were commenced, purportedly in compliance with a pre-action protocol (PAP). Company A challenged the truthfulness of these statements, supported by social media evidence indicating the Respondents were well during the holiday. Company A sought permission to commence committal proceedings for contempt based on alleged falsehoods in the witness statements.

The initial application for committal was granted permission by a High Court Judge, but at a case management conference another High Court Judge raised a preliminary issue regarding the court's jurisdiction to entertain committal proceedings based on witness statements made before proceedings were formally started. The Judge dismissed the application to amend the grounds of contempt and struck out the committal proceedings, holding that there was no jurisdiction to find contempt on the basis of the original witness statements made pre-proceedings.

Company A appealed the dismissal of the application to amend and the decision on jurisdiction.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the court has jurisdiction to find contempt of court in respect of false witness statements verified by a statement of truth made before formal proceedings have been commenced.
2. Whether the refusal to allow the amendment to add further grounds of contempt relating to additional witness statements was an error of law or judicial discretion.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The original witness statements, verified by statements of truth and made in purported compliance with a PAP, can give rise to contempt even if proceedings were never formally issued.
• The false statements interfered with the due administration of justice by misleading the Appellant and causing reputational and financial harm.
• The court has inherent jurisdiction to commit for contempt beyond the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) provisions, which do not restrict contempt to statements made only after proceedings commence.
• The refusal to amend to add further grounds of contempt relating to subsequent witness statements was incorrect, as those statements fell within CPR 32.14 and showed further falsehoods.
• There is a strong public interest in pursuing contempt proceedings to uphold honesty and integrity in litigation processes and pre-action protocols.

Respondents' Position

The Respondents did not attend or actively oppose the appeal. Their solicitors indicated they were not in a position to oppose and acknowledged the jurisdictional point was raised by the Judge rather than themselves.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed whether CPR 32.14 confers jurisdiction to bring committal proceedings for contempt based on witness statements verified by statements of truth made before formal proceedings commence. It agreed with the lower court that CPR 32.14 does not apply to such pre-proceedings statements, as witness statements must be served within commenced proceedings.

However, the court emphasized the court’s inherent jurisdiction to punish contempt at common law, which extends to conduct interfering with the due administration of justice even if it occurs before proceedings are formally started. The court rejected the idea that contempt jurisdiction is limited to conduct during pending or imminent proceedings, citing established case law including the Attorney-General v News Group Newspapers case.

The court found that the original witness statements, though served pre-proceedings and under an incorrect PAP, were intended to give the impression of truthful claims and thus interfered with the administration of justice if false. Pre-action protocols are an integral part of litigation architecture and dishonest statements made in purported compliance with them can engage contempt jurisdiction.

The court noted the importance of prosecuting false statements to maintain respect for the statement of truth and the integrity of the justice system, citing authoritative cases such as KJM Superbikes and South Wales Fire and Rescue Service v Smith.

Regarding the application to amend to add further grounds of contempt based on subsequent witness statements made after proceedings were commenced, the court found that refusal by the lower court was an error of principle. The further statements fell within CPR 32.14 and showed further alleged falsehoods, justifying amendment and continuation of the committal proceedings.

The court also addressed procedural issues, noting that the original application for permission was made to the wrong court but that the procedural defect was waived as no injustice was caused.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED THE APPEAL.

The holding establishes that false witness statements verified by statements of truth made before proceedings commence, in purported compliance with a pre-action protocol, can constitute contempt of court and be subject to committal proceedings. The court also held that the refusal to permit amendment to add further grounds of contempt relating to subsequent witness statements was erroneous, and permission to amend was granted.

The direct effect is that the committal proceedings against the Respondents may continue on both the original and amended grounds. No broader new precedent was set beyond the application of existing common law contempt principles to pre-proceedings witness statements in the context of PAPs. The court indicated that procedural rules should be updated to clarify the position regarding contempt arising from such pre-proceedings statements.