header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
15 September 2023 / Sam Thomas , Manon Huckle , Oliver Cooke , Richard Marshall
Issue: 8040 / Categories: Features , Contempt
printer mail-detail

A (dis)honest mistake?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
137526
The concept of reckless falsity has been rejected by the Court of Appeal: Sam Thomas, Manon Huckle, Oliver Cooke & Richard Marshall assess some key takeaways for contempt of court applications
  • For permission for an application for contempt of court to be granted, the court must be satisfied that there is a strong case that a person knowingly, and so dishonestly, misled the court.
  • The concept of reckless falsity has been rejected.
  • There is no different test or higher standard required of police officers.

Can a reckless misstatement be a contempt of court? Is evidence unchecked and incorrect, under a statement of truth, enough for a potential prison sentence? Or is honest negligence a defence to an allegation of making a false statement?

Reckless falsity

Ten years ago, in Berry Piling Systems Ltd v Sheer Projects Ltd [2013] EWHC 347 (TCC), [2013] All ER (D) 42 (Mar), Mr Justice Akenhead concluded that a reckless disregard for the truth of a statement was sufficient for contempt

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

Keystone Law—Milena Szuniewicz-Wenzel & Ian Hopkinson

International arbitration team strengthened by double partner hire

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Coodes Solicitors—Pam Johns, Rachel Pearce & Bradley Kaine

Firm celebrates trio holding senior regional law society and junior lawyers division roles

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Michelman Robinson—Sukhi Kaler

Partner joins commercial and business litigation team in London

NEWS
Read All
Legal Action Group set out 2026 events calendar
The Legal Action Group (LAG)—the UK charity dedicated to advancing access to justice—has unveiled its calendar of training courses, seminars and conferences designed to support lawyers, advisers and other legal professionals in tackling key areas of public interest law
NLJ this week: Mandelson, Epstein & the court of popular opinion
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
NLJ this week: Volunteers, promotions & perilous appeals
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll