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
Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Policing the safeguards when appointing trust corporations
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
NLJ this week: What the court considers when assessing refusal of ADR
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
NLJ this week: Finding innovative ways to fund the justice gap
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Two’s company, but three’s a crowd in financial provision cases
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Charities Appeals Supplement: March 2026
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll