High Court approves discontinuance of Contempt proceedings in NHS Northern Lincolnshire & Goole v Burnell-Chambers & Clifford, in relation to the second defendant, demonstrating the importance of the continued assessment of the public interest test throughout Contempt proceedings.
News Contempt, Administrative & Public Law, Clinical Negligence
On 25 July 2025, Jonathan Glasson KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge approved discontinuance of the case against Lynne Clifford, the Second Defendant. The Learned Judge had previously refused permission for the Claimant to proceed to seek committal for contempt against the Second Defendant on the basis she had aided Ms. Burnell-Chambers, the First Defendant, in dishonest representations to the medical experts that the First Defendant was suffering from extreme symptoms of cauda equina syndrome. The Learned Judge had permitted the Claimant to proceed only on narrow grounds relating solely to the Second Defendant’s signature to a declaration of truth in a witness statement said to contain fraudulent misrepresentations as to the First Defendant’s state of incapacity. Northern Lincolnshire & Goole NHS Foundation Trust v Burnell-Chambers & Clifford [2024] EWHC 1901 (KB).
Background
The First Defendant had made a clinical negligence claim against the Claimant arising out of admitted breaches of liability in relation to treatment the she had undergone, whilst under the Claimant’s care. The First Defendant sought damages in the region of £3 million. In assessing quantum, the First Defendant had been required to attend numerous medical experts, escorted by the Second Defendant. During the course of those consultations it was alleged the First Defendant had exaggerated the seriousness of her condition and been dishonest about her state of disability. It was alleged that the Second Defendant supported and assisted in the misrepresentations made in the various appointments, knowing the position to be false. It was also alleged that both had then made declarations of truth in various Court documents that were also false and known to be so by both.
The Claimant had undertaken covert surveillance of the First Defendant both alone and in company with the Second Defendant. On production of that surveillance evidence the First Defendant compromised the clinical negligence proceedings, agreed a consent order and made an admission of fundamental dishonesty.
Judgment
In refusing permission for the majority of the Claimant’s grounds to proceed in relation to the Second Defendant, the Learned Judge identified the need for “a strong prima facie case.” That strength was materially dependant upon the proximity of the evidence of wrongdoing to the events in question. There was, he determined, insufficient evidence to show that there was an inevitable inference of dishonesty on the part of the Second Defendant and a lack of evidence to show “an intention to bring about a state of affairs which objectively construed amounts to an interference with the due administration of justice.”
The First Defendant latterly made admissions to elements of the contempts alleged. In discontinuing the case on application by the parties in relation to the Second Defendant, the Learned Judge was clear that the cost to the public purse of a public body prosecuting a committal for contempt against an individual in circumstances where admissions had been made by the First Defendant, was material to an assessment of the public interest in the case continuing to trial. In the circumstances, he therefore ordered the case against the Second Defendant should be discontinued
Tim Grey instructed by Simon Barker of Janes Solicitors, appeared for the Second Defendant, Lynne Clifford.
You can read the full judgment on permission here.
