Airbus Operations Ltd v QBE Insurance Company (UK) Ltd & Anor

Airbus Operations Ltd v QBE Insurance Company (UK) Ltd & Anor

The defendant knowingly made false statements in his witness statement and to medical experts, exaggerating his disability with the intention of misleading the court and obtaining damages to which he was not entitled. Surveillance evidence demonstrated that his claims were untrue. This conduct amounted to contempt of court as it was intended to interfere with the administration of justice.

Parties
Claimant: Airbus Operations Limited; Claimant: QBE Insurance Company (UK) Limited; Defendant: Adam Lee Roberts
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Committal for Contempt of Court / Judgment on Liability for Contempt
Outcome
Defendant found in contempt of court in the respects indicated; further submissions invited before final order.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Fraudulent Claims, Damages, Medical Evidence, Surveillance Evidence
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Insurance Law Contempt of Court Fraudulent Claims Damages Medical Evidence Surveillance Evidence

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Airbus Operations Limited

Claimant

QBE Insurance Company (UK) Limited

Claimant

Adam Lee Roberts

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Committal for Contempt of Court / Judgment on Liability for Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant knowingly made false statements in support of his personal injury claim amounting to contempt of court
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's conduct interfered with the administration of justice

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant knowingly made false statements in his witness statement and to medical experts, exaggerating his disability with the intention of misleading the court and obtaining damages to which he was not entitled. Surveillance evidence demonstrated that his claims were untrue. This conduct amounted to contempt of court as it was intended to interfere with the administration of justice.

Court Disposition

Defendant found in contempt of court in the respects indicated; further submissions invited before final order.