North Lincolnshire & Goole NHS Foundation Trust v Kae Burnell-Chambers

North Lincolnshire & Goole NHS Foundation Trust v Kae Burnell-Chambers

The defendant's deliberate and sustained dishonesty in exaggerating disability and making false statements to experts and in court documents constituted serious contempt of court, causing significant harm to a public organisation. Mitigating factors, including family circumstances and apology, were outweighed by the...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: North Lincolnshire & Goole NHS Foundation Trust; Defendant: Kae Burnell-Chambers
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Committal Proceedings for Contempt of Court / Sentencing Judgment
Outcome
Defendant sentenced to immediate custody for contempt of court.
Legal Topics
Dishonest Exaggeration of Claim, False Statements, Interference With Administration of Justice, Sentencing for Contempt
Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Contempt of Court Dishonest Exaggeration of Claim False Statements Interference With Administration of Justice Sentencing for Contempt

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

North Lincolnshire & Goole NHS Foundation Trust

Claimant

Kae Burnell-Chambers

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Committal Proceedings for Contempt of Court / Sentencing Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant committed contempt of court by dishonestly exaggerating a clinical negligence claim and making false statements to medical experts and in court documents
  2. 2 Appropriate sentence for contempt of court in the context of a dishonest civil claim

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's deliberate and sustained dishonesty in exaggerating disability and making false statements to experts and in court documents constituted serious contempt of court, causing significant harm to a public organisation. Mitigating factors, including family circumstances and apology, were outweighed by the seriousness of the contempt. Immediate custody was necessary; the sentence was reduced for mitigation and guilty plea but not suspended.

Court Disposition

Defendant sentenced to immediate custody for contempt of court.

Orders

  • Defendant to serve 26 weeks' imprisonment, with up to one-half in custody and remainder on release.