Richard Achille v Philip Calcutt
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Pepperall |
| Judgment Date | 19 February 2024 |
| Neutral Citation | [2024] EWHC 348 (KB) |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No. KB-2023-BHM-000082 |
[2024] EWHC 348 (KB)
THE HONOURABLE Mr Justice Pepperall
Case No. KB-2023-BHM-000082
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT REGISTRY
Birmingham Civil & Family Justice Centre
Bull Street, Birmingham B4 6DR
Richard Achille appeared in person
Helen Bell (instructed by Browne Jacobson LLP) for the Defendants
Hearing dates: 22 & 29 November 2023
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely on 19 February 2024 by circulation to the parties and by release to the National Archives.
Richard Achille is a qualified personal trainer, licensed tennis referee, basketball coach, and masseur. In 2014, he was an adult member of the Moseley Tennis Club in Birmingham. Following reports about Mr Achille's conduct at a junior tournament on 23 April 2014, his membership was first suspended and then terminated. By these proceedings, Mr Achille seeks to commit to prison the then club chairman, Philip Calcutt, and the then club secretary, Jane Carrington, for alleged contempt of court arising out of their handling of this issue. Specifically, it is alleged that they “doctored” emails received by the club raising concerns as to Mr Achille's conduct on 23 April and that they falsely asserted that the Lawn Tennis Association (“the LTA”) had advised that Mr Achille be reported to the police.
By an application dated 25 September 2023, Mr Calcutt and Ms Carrington seek to strike out or stay the contempt proceedings. By his own application dated 8 October 2023, Mr Achille seeks permission to amend his contempt claim. Both applications came before me on 22 November 2023. I then ventured two important preliminary views:
2.1 First, I indicated that, subject to argument, I considered that Mr Achille required the court's permission to bring these proceedings pursuant to r.81.3(5) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 and that it might be more convenient to consider the question of permission before considering the application to strike out or stay proceedings.
2.2 Secondly, I observed that it was appropriate to consider the amendment application first since the court could not sensibly consider the questions of permission, strike-out or stay before identifying Mr Achille's case.
While I heard the parties on amendment and the need for permission on 22 November 2023, they were not then ready to argue the question of whether permission should be granted. I therefore adjourned the matter and heard further argument on 29 November 2023.
THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION
Mr Achille initiated these committal proceedings by issuing a Part 8 claim on 20 February 2023. The claim was supported by Particulars of Contempt of Court dated 18 February 2023. On 22 March 2023, Her Honour Judge Emma Kelly expressed concern as to the lack of clarity in Mr Achille's case and ordered that he should file and serve a revised schedule of allegations of contempt clarifying and particularising his case.
There are a number of different iterations of Mr Achille's case now before the court. In the course of his submissions, Mr Achille clarified that the final documents upon which he seeks to commit the defendants are the amended claim form at page 562 of the hearing bundle, the Amended Particulars of Claim dated 30 March 2023 at page 565, and the Amended Scott Schedule wrongly dated but in fact served with a supplementary statement dated 24 April 2023 at page 356.
Helen Bell, who appears for the defendants, resists the application to amend. She argues that Particulars of Claim are not known to the Part 8 procedure. Further, she contends that the amended allegations have no real prospect of success, that Mr Achille has failed properly to explain why they were not made from the outset, and that they will cause manifest and obvious prejudice to the defendants in facing these allegations nearly a decade after the events took place. She argues that Judge Kelly's order required proper particularisation of the existing case and was not an invitation to add to the scope of the contempt claim. In any event, she submits that the amended particulars remain difficult to understand and fail properly to plead the basic ingredients of the committal application.
I did not call upon Mr Achille on the issue of amendment and I allow his application:
7.1 It is true that Part 8 claimants are not required to file Particulars of Claim. The point is, however, semantic since the standard form requires them to give “details” of their claims and, in this case, Judge Kelly ordered that Mr Achille should give “particulars” of his case.
7.2 These are not late amendments made shortly before a final hearing but rather amendments that were first proposed some months ago before the court has even considered the issue of permission. In principle, and subject to ensuring that the defendants are not thereby prejudiced, Mr Achille should be able to seek permission upon the case that he wants to put forward.
7.3 Ms Bell is right to argue that the court should ordinarily refuse amendments where the new case does not have a real prospect of success or where the proposed amendment is incoherent or insufficiently particularised (as usefully summarised in Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd v. James Kemball Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 33, at [17]–[18]). I am not, however, satisfied that the amended case is any less meritorious, coherent or particularised than the original pleading.
7.4 The prejudice caused by facing this claim a decade after the key events does not arise from the amendments but is inherent in the original claim.
7.5 Given that, for the reasons I explain below, Mr Achille requires the court's permission to bring this contempt claim, I consider that it is appropriate to allow the amendments and consider the merits of his case, the sufficiency of the particulars given, and the question of delay (not just in making the amended allegations but more broadly) at the permission stage.
7.6 Furthermore, it is trite that the court does not ordinarily strike out a claim without first considering whether any defect in the case might be cured by amendment. It is therefore appropriate to consider the application to strike out this claim upon Mr Achille's final case. Any other approach would involve undesirable circularity.
By his final amended schedule, Mr Achille originally sought to pursue nine allegations of contempt. He now concedes that he cannot establish a strong prima facie case in respect of allegations 1, 4, 5, 7 and 8. Accordingly, Mr Achille only seeks to commit the defendants on four allegations. The remaining allegations are pleaded as follows:
IS PERMISSION REQUIRED?
| No. | Date | Allegation | References in Particulars of Claim |
| 2 | On or around 28.5.14 | D1 and D2 doctored alleged email complaints received from Simon Haddleton and Sean Kettle. Actions were contempt in the face of court by illegally interfering with the due administration of justice and violating CPR 32.14. | Paras 3, 7 |
| 3 | 4.6.14 | D1 and D2 collected information and delivered the doctored emails from Simon Haddleton and Sean Kettle to C. Contemptuous as in 2 above. | Paras 3, 7 |
| 6 | 5.14 | D2 informed D1 that the LTA on or about 29.4.14 & 1.5.14 requested involvement of police. Contempt in the face of court, illegal interference with the due administration of justice and violated CPR 32.14. | Paras 5, 9 |
| 9 | 26.6.17 – 27.11.17 | D1 and D2 told their solicitors that the LTA requested police involvement, they used in D90BM137 defence. Triggering E90BM146 claim. Contempt in the face of court violating CPR 32.14. | Paras 5, 9 |
Rule 81.3(5) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 provides:
“Permission to make a contempt application is required where the application is made in relation to—
(a) interference with the due administration of justice, except in relation to existing High Court or county court proceedings;
(b) an allegation of knowingly making a false statement in any affidavit, affirmation or other document verified by a statement of truth or in a disclosure statement.”
Mr Achille agrees that permission is required. Indeed, his amended claim form and supporting documents expressly seek permission. Against that, Kevin Lawson's witness statement served in support of the defendants' application to strike out or stay these proceedings took no point on permission and argued that these committal applications were made in existing proceedings, namely claims A90BM255, A90BM307 and A90BM308. Such position was not maintained in argument before me, and Ms Bell did not seek to dissuade me from my preliminary view that permission is in fact required upon a proper application of r.81.3(5).
In my judgment, the parties are right to recognise that permission is required in respect of each of the allegations now pursued. Given the terms of Mr Lawson's evidence, the fact that the issue was raised by me, and the fact that Mr Achille is a litigant in person, it is appropriate briefly to explain the reasons for this conclusion.
ALLEGATIONS 2, 3 & 6
Allegations 2, 3 and 6 are not pleaded on the basis that the defendants made false statements in documents verified by statements of truth. Properly analysed, they are allegations of interference with the due administration of justice. Permission is therefore required pursuant to r.81.3(5)(a) unless the alleged interference was “in relation to existing High Court or county court proceedings.”
In a number of cases the courts have had to grapple with the proper interpretation of “existing proceedings” in the exception to r.81.3(5)(a). The caselaw is principally concerned with the question of whether an application is in relation to “existing proceedings” once such proceedings have come to an end:
13.1 In Care...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richard Achille v Philip Calcutt
...advised that Mr Achille's conduct should be reported to the police. 2 By my judgment handed down on 19 February 2024 and reported at [2024] EWHC 348 (KB), I refused Mr Achille's application for permission to bring these contempt proceedings and dismissed his claim. Further, I certified tha......