Simon Kevin Frain (Aka Simon Kevin Reeves, Aka Bill Reeves) v Louise Michelle Reeves
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Joanna Smith |
| Judgment Date | 19 January 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] EWHC 73 (Ch) |
| Docket Number | Case No: PT-2019-000803 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
[2023] EWHC 73 (Ch)
Mrs Justice Joanna Smith DBE
Case No: PT-2019-000803
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
Royal Courts of Justice, Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Mr C Darton KC, Mr M Karia and Mr H Fraser (instructed by LLP Solicitors) for the Claimants
Ms E Jones KC and Mr P Adams (instructed by Hodge Jones & Allen) for the First Defendant
Mr TJC Grey (instructed by Janes Solicitors) for the Second Defendant
Hearing date: 14 December 2022
Approved Judgment
This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 19 January 2023, by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.
This is my judgment following the hearing of two applications made pursuant to CPR81.3(1) and CPR 81.3(5)(b) for permission to commence committal proceedings in circumstances where it is alleged that each of the two Defendants (respectively “ Louise” and “ Mr Curnock”) have knowingly made a false statement (in Louise's case) in four documents verified by a statement of truth and (in Mr Curnock's case) one document verified by a statement of truth. The Claimants to the applications (separately “ Bill” and “ Ryan”) are Louise's brother and nephew respectively. Where I refer to parties by their first names, it is for ease of reference only; no disrespect is intended.
The applications arise further to underlying, bitterly contested, probate proceedings (“ the Proceedings”) in respect of the estate of the late Kevin Reeves (“ the Deceased”), father to Louise and Bill and grandfather to Ryan. The Deceased died in 2019. At the heart of the Proceedings lay the validity of a 2014 Will (“ the 2014 Will”), leaving 80% of residue to Louise and the remaining 20% to her sister, Lisa. Louise commenced the Proceedings against various members of her family, including Bill and Ryan, in October 2019 seeking probate of the 2014 Will. Bill and Ryan filed defences alleging want of knowledge and approval in respect of the 2014 Will and counterclaimed for probate of an earlier will (“ the 2012 Will”) which split 80% of the residue between Louise and her siblings Bill and Lisa equally, with the remainder to be split between Ryan and his sister, Ria. They also alleged undue influence against Louise.
Mr Curnock is a solicitor who had been charged with preparing the Deceased's 2014 Will and was at that time working at Christopher Green McCarrahers Solicitors (“ CGM”). He gave evidence at the trial of the Proceedings in support of Louise's case that the 2014 Will was the Deceased's last valid will. An issue that arose at the trial was the extent of the relationship between Mr Curnock and Louise (the main beneficiary of the 2014 Will) in the period prior to its execution. It bears emphasis that Mr Curnock was not a party to the Proceedings.
Judgment was given in the Proceedings by Michael Green J (“ the Judge”) on 31 January 2022 ( Reeves v Drew & Ors [2022] EWHC 159 (Ch)) (“ the Judgment”), dismissing the claim of undue influence but holding that Louise had not proved on the balance of probabilities that the Deceased knew and approved the contents of the 2014 Will. The Judge accordingly pronounced for the 2012 Will. In his Judgment, the Judge made findings of fact against Louise and Mr Curnock which the Claimants (at least in their submissions) wish to pray in aid in support of the Contempt Applications. An important issue in these applications is whether they should be entitled to do so on grounds of admissibility, fairness and reliability.
The Applications
The facts alleged to constitute a contempt as against Louise are set out in a Contempt Application dated 18 July 2022 as follows:
“The Claimants apply to bring proceedings for contempt of court against the Defendant, Ms Louise Reeves, on the basis she knowingly made false statements in four documents verified by signed statements of truth in the course of the proceedings in Reeves v Drew & Ors [2022] EWHC 159 (Ch), being:
a) Her Reply & Defence, dated 15 November 2019. In paragraph 14, Ms Reeves stated that she “did not know Mr [Daniel] Curnock until after the deceased executed the 2014 Will [on 7 January 2014]”. That statement was made intentionally or recklessly without a[n] honest belief in its truth.
b) Her response dated 12 August 2020 to a request for further information pursuant to CPR 18 (dated 20 February 2020) with the Answer —
“After the 2014 Will had been executed”
(to the question (request for further information) —
“When did the Claimant [Ms Louise Reeves] first meet Mr Curnock”)
That statement (response) was made intentionally or recklessly without a[n] honest belief in its truth.
c) Her First Disclosure Statement, dated 19 March 2021, which was made knowingly or recklessly without a[n] honest belief in its truth in that Ms Reeves failed to disclose the existence of emails, phone calls, and text messages from herself to Mr Daniel Curnock which were in her control.
d) Her Second Disclosure Statement, dated 21 May 2021, which was made knowingly or recklessly without a[n] honest belief in its truth in that Ms Reeves failed to disclose the existence of phone calls, and text messages exchanged from herself to Mr Daniel Curnock which were in her control”.
Pausing there, I note that although particulars of the alleged knowledge or recklessness are provided in relation to the claim in respect of the First and Second Disclosure Statements, no particulars are supplied in relation to the similar allegation in respect of Louise's Reply & Defence or her response to the February 2020 request for further information. This was pointed out by Ms Jones KC on behalf of Louise, noting that it was a “problem”, but (perhaps with an eye to the observations of Davis LJ in Ocado Group Plc v McKeeve [2021] EWCA Civ 145 at [88] to the effect that the general direction of travel is to eschew unwanted elaboration in this sort of case) she did not seek to suggest that Louise was not clear as to the case that she had to meet simply by reason of this lack of particularisation and nor did she seek to persuade me of any failure on the part of the Claimants to comply with the requirements of CPR 81.4. For ease of reference, I shall refer to the statements relied upon by the Claimants in the order they are set out in the application against Louise as the First, Second, Third and Fourth Statements.
The application against Louise goes on to say that it is “brought alongside an interlinked application to bring proceedings for contempt of court against Mr Daniel Curnock”.
The facts alleged to constitute contempt as against Mr Curnock are set out in a separate Contempt Application of the same date in the following terms:
“1. The Claimants apply to bring proceedings for contempt of court against the Defendant, Mr Curnock, on the basis he knowingly made a false statement in a witness statement, dated 2 December 2019, supported with a signed statement of truth, for the purposes of the proceedings in Reeves v Drew & Ors [2022] EWHC 159 (Ch).
2. In Mr Curnock's witness statement he stated: “I only met Louise [Reeves] for the first time when I went for a meeting to discuss the terms of the trust, of which we are both trustees, which was after the deceased's Will was signed [on 7 January 2014].” That statement was made intentionally or recklessly without honest belief in its truth”.
Again, no particulars in support of the assertion as to Mr Curnock's mental state were provided, but Mr Grey, acting on behalf of Mr Curnock, also did not suggest that his client had been unable to understand the case he was required to meet, although he did submit that that case had been substantially (and improperly) developed in the Claimants' skeleton argument – a point to which I shall return later. Mirroring the application against Louise, the Contempt Application against Mr Curnock states that it is “brought alongside an interlinked application to bring proceedings for contempt of court against Ms Louise Reeves”. I shall refer to the statement on which the Claimants rely against Mr Curnock as “ the Curnock Statement”.
The supporting evidence attached to both applications is in the form of an affidavit dated 18 July 2022 from Mr Raj Kumar Mehta, a solicitor and managing director of the Claimants' solicitors (“ Mehta 1”). I shall return to this evidence in due course, but for present purposes I note:
i) first, that the applications are said to be “relatively narrow”; in so far as Mehta 1 sets out a number of “serious findings” made in the Judgment against both Louise and Mr Curnock, those findings are expressly said to have been referred to “merely as background”. For the purposes of the Contempt Applications, the Claimants do not rely upon any allegation of fraud or conspiracy against either Defendant. As a consequence, it is the Defendants' case (with which I agree) that there is no scope for any such allegations to be advanced at any future substantive hearing.
ii) second, that although the applications against Louise and Mr Curnock are closely connected (and rely upon the same evidence) they are formally separate and I shall need to consider them separately.
iii) third, that in so far as the applications involve the allegation that Louise and Mr Curnock made false statements to the effect that they had not met prior to the execution of the 2014 Will, it is accepted by both Louise and Mr Curnock that their statements were false, albeit that it is their case that they were innocently made.
The Judgment and the Procedural Background
In the Judgment, the Judge was careful to avoid making any direct findings of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
UK Insurance Ltd v Syed Mohammed Yusuf Ali
...diminishes both the public interest and proportionality of bringing committal proceedings. Relying on observations in Frain v. Reeves [2023] EWHC 73 (Ch), Mr Stern argues that Mr Ali has already paid for his dishonesty. Indeed, he points to evidence that Mr Ali is unemployed and in receipt......
-
Advantage Insurance Company Ltd v Alan Harris
...Evidence (20 th ed.) at para. 43–78, for the basis of the rule, and the decision of Joanna Smith J in Frain & others v Reeves & others [2023] EWHC 73 (Ch), at [33] and [42]. Nevertheless, it does not follow from the fact that those findings are admissible that I am bound by them. The Judge......
-
Episo 4 Pilgrim Holding SARL v Timothy Davies
...be wise to refrain from saying more about the merits of the complaint than is necessary” ( KJM, [18] and see also Frain v Reeves [2023] EWHC 73 (Ch), [24])). It is easy to see why this is so. If the court grants permission, the merits will be a matter for the judge hearing the application.......