Northern Lincolnshire & Goole NHS Foundation Trust v Kae Burnell-Chambers & Anor

Northern Lincolnshire & Goole NHS Foundation Trust v Kae Burnell-Chambers & Anor

Permission to bring committal proceedings against the Second Defendant is refused on the ground of interference with the due administration of justice, as there is no strong prima facie case on the evidence. Permission is granted on the ground of knowingly making a false statement, as the video surveillance evidence, taken shortly after the witness statement, supports a strong prima facie case that the Second Defendant knew her statements were false and likely to interfere with the course of justice. Public interest and proportionality requirements are satisfied.

Parties
Claimant: Northern Lincolnshire & Goole NHS Foundation Trust; First Defendant: Kae Burnell-Chambers; Second Defendant: Lynne Clifford
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Permission Application for Committal/contempt Proceedings / Permission Hearing for Contempt Application
Outcome
Permission granted in part; permission to bring committal proceedings against the Second Defendant for knowingly making a false statement is granted; permission refused for interference with the due administration of justice.
Legal Topics
Permission for Committal Proceedings, False Statements, Interference With Administration of Justice, Clinical Negligence, Costs, Fundamental Dishonesty
Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Contempt of Court Permission for Committal Proceedings False Statements Interference With Administration of Justice Clinical Negligence Costs +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Northern Lincolnshire & Goole NHS Foundation Trust

Claimant

Kae Burnell-Chambers

First Defendant

Lynne Clifford

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Permission Application for Committal/contempt Proceedings / Permission Hearing for Contempt Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to bring contempt proceedings against the Second Defendant for interference with the due administration of justice and/or knowingly making a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth
  2. 2 Whether the procedural requirements for the application were met
  3. 3 Whether there is a strong prima facie case against the Second Defendant on either ground

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to bring committal proceedings against the Second Defendant is refused on the ground of interference with the due administration of justice, as there is no strong prima facie case on the evidence. Permission is granted on the ground of knowingly making a false statement, as the video surveillance evidence, taken shortly after the witness statement, supports a strong prima facie case that the Second Defendant knew her statements were false and likely to interfere with the course of justice. Public interest and proportionality requirements are satisfied.

Court Disposition

Permission granted in part; permission to bring committal proceedings against the Second Defendant for knowingly making a false statement is granted; permission refused for interference with the due administration of justice.

Orders

  • Parties to agree directions for the substantive hearing; if not agreed, directions to be resolved by written submissions.