UPDATE – Jet2 – vs – Hughes

On 15th  November 2019 we shared an article about the case of Jet2 v Hughes https://www.mortons-solicitors.co.uk/is-it-possible-to-be-in-contempt-of-court-when-not-in-court/

Our article looked at the question of Contempt of Court. Mr & Mrs Hughes were in the pre court stage of making a claim against Jet2 and had submitted statements in support of this initial letter of claim.

Jet2 responded by asking the court to consider instigating contempt of court proceedings on the basis that the content of the statements were false. Jet2 had found posts on social media which portrayed a potentially different picture of the holiday than the experience described in the Hughes’ claim.

The Hughes’ did not pursue their claim but this did not stop the Contempt of Court proceedings.   Mr & Mrs Hughes denied that the information in their statements was false. They made further statements setting out that they had complained to the hotel manager, and despite their illnesses, they had “put up a front” that they were having a great holiday. The social media posts were not a true reflection of their mood at the time.

Initially, a court decided that proceedings for contempt of court could not be brought as the statements had not been served as part of court proceedings. A higher court did not agree saying that the test was whether the conduct in question involved an interference with the administration of justice either in a particular case or more generally as a continuing process.

The court went on to say that even though Mr & Mrs Hughes had not yet started proceedings when the statements were sent that they were still capable of interfering with the administration of justice.

This meant that the claim against the Hughes for Contempt of Court was permitted.

It has taken a considerable length of time for that trial to proceed to a conclusion.

Mr Hughes has subsequently told us that on the 21st June 2022 Her Honour Judge Coe QC sitting as a High Court Judge at Derby District Registry dismissed Jet2’s claim and made an order for defence costs.

The Judge stated that the Jet2 had not proved that the Hughes’ statements were false or made with the intention to interfere with the administration of justice.