header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

A (dis)honest mistake?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
15 September 2023 / Sam Thomas , Manon Huckle , Oliver Cooke , Richard Marshall
Issue: 8040 / Categories: Features , Contempt
printer mail-detail
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
Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Motor finance faces £11bn reckoning
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
NLJ this week: Gold on Awaab’s Law & digital divorce
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
NLJ this week: AI in the dock—courts need literacy, not fear
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Landlords lose their upward climb
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
NLJ this week: Privy Council undresses the ‘shareholder rule’
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll