Due to the restrictions of the pandemic, the courts implemented virtual hearings. However, what would happen if a person, taking advantage of this modality, allegedly failed to connect and turn on the video so that someone else could impersonate him? Well, that happened in the UK. A court found a person involved in a damages claim in contempt of court. Read about the case.
Context
Tesco, a supermarket chain, discovered that it had been subjected to fraudulent practices in the UK by organised scammers. The dynamics were as follows. The scammers bribed Tesco van drivers, as well as third-party drivers, to participate in staged collisions, to sue Tesco for fraudulent compensation. When Tesco became aware of these practices it filled counterclaims. One such case was that of Mr Mouradi.
Background to the case
Collision and lawsuit
In October 2019 a collision occurred between the vehicle owned by Mr Mouradi and a Tesco van. The car was being driven by his cousin, Mr Tawfeek. Consequently, Mr. Mouradi sued Tesco for damages. However, as recounted in Judge Collin Rice’s judgment, this was one of the fraudulent cases. Tesco therefore asked to the Gloucester County Court, among other things, to admit a counterclaim against the claimant. Mr Mouradi’s solicitor, upon learning of Tesco’s position that the claim was fraudulent, decided to stop representing him. This was 3 days before the first hearing.
Virtual hearing
The first hearing was held on 4 December 2020 via Skype, due to pandemic restrictions. Mr Mouradi argued that he was unable to connect via Skype and therefore only appeared by call (without showing his face). There was confusion at the hearing as to Mr Mouradi’s identity and whether he was participating in the hearing. Furthermore, Mr Mouradi claimed that he knew nothing about the case, and that, on the contrary, his solicitor had involved him in the claim. The judge therefore ordered that the identity of the claimant be verified, and made a provision for the vacation the trial and the staying of his claim.
Second hearing
Subsequently, at the hearing on 8 April 2021, the issue of Mr Mouradi’s identity was heard. The applicant appeared together with Mr Abdul and requested that he be recognised in the capacity of ‘McKenzie Friend’. At the hearing, Mr Mouradi proved his identity with various documents which he presented to the Court. However, counsel for Tesco informed the judge that the issue now was whether the speaker at the earlier hearing was Mr Mouradi or someone else. The counsel argued that the actual speaker at the previous hearing was Mr Abdul and not Mr Mouradi.
In light of this information, the Judge refused the application for Abdul to participate as ‘McKenzie Friend’. She also put them into the witness box and asked them about their participation in the hearing. Mr Mouradi accepted that he participated before the court. Mr Abdul denied having participated in the hearing but agreed to be in the same room as Mr Mouradi. He denied that he had spoken at the previous hearing.
Ruling for dishonest claims
Consequently, Tesco applied to hold Mr Mouradi liable for contempt of court. In a judgment delivered on 17 November 2023, the Judge found Mr Tawfeek (driver) and Mr Mouradi liable for conspiring to stage a collision to claim compensation. The judge found that Abdul was the one who spoke at the virtual hearing, rather than Mr. Mouradi, who was aware of it and was there with him. She also found them liable for deceit and unlawful means conspiracy by pursuing dishonest claims. The Judge therefore awarded damages.
In that context, Tesco filed a second contempt application against Mr Mouradi.
Assessment of the court
This second case was heard by Justice Collin Rice of the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division. In her judgment, the Justice concluded that Mr Mouradi and Abdul collaborated in the imposture carried out at the virtual hearing. The Judge found that those involved were convinced that Abdul’s experience and familiarity with legal matters would achieve results that Mr Mouradi alone would not have been able to achieve. The Judge expressed her belief that this was not collaboration or advice as they sought to portray to the former Judge. She noted that the impossibility expressed at the hearing to turn on the camera undermines the credibility of Mr. Mouradi’s statements.
The Court further clarified that it rejected Mr Mouradi’s statement that he did not know anything. She indicated that his narrative of ‘obliviousness’ was consistent with his admitted lie that he did not know about the lawsuit and the lie that he did not know about Abdul’s imposture.
Decision of the Court
In summary, the Court highlighted the following facts in support of its decision to hold Mr. Mouradi in contempt of court:
1. His admitted contempt in respect of his denial under oath before the courts, of ignorance of the collision or of having instructed a solicitor to issue a fraudulent compensation claim.
2. His sworn denials of knowing or being involved in the staged collision before issuing the claim, and his sworn testimony that he learned of the collision after it occurred.
3. Allowing or causing Abdul to impersonate him at the hearing, under the pretext of not being able to show his face in court and subsequently giving sworn testimony to the contrary.
For the above, Justice Collins Rice sentenced Mr. Mouradi for contempt of court.
Read the judgment of Case No: QB-2022-001418
Find out more about the law around the World
References
Case No: QB-2022-001418. Neutral Citation Number [2024] EWHC 1466 (KB). Judgment delivered on 14 June 2024. High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division.
