Insights / News
Insights / News
Ben Bradley KC of Outer Temple Chambers, leading Gary Lewis of Cobden House Chambers (instructed by Marc Livingston of Janes Solicitors), successfully represented Mr Shaw in resisting an application for permission to bring contempt of court proceedings under CPR Part 81.
The Respondent’s original underlying personal injury claim had been dismissed following the Court making findings that the originally pleaded claim of £6.6m was fundamentally dishonest. The Court had found that the true value of the claim was c.£1.2m. The original case attracted significant press attention, being described variously as “the largest fundamental dishonesty [decision] ever recorded in the UK”.
Following dismissal of the underlying claim, the Applicant’s solicitors and insurers, Advantage Insurance Company Ltd, sought permission to commence contempt proceedings against Mr Shaw under CPR Part 81. At an earlier directions hearing, HHJ Sephton KC identified the central issue: by what authority were the proceedings being brought in the name of the insured defendant, Gillian Wilde? The court directed disclosure of material demonstrating Ms Wilde’s authority, any contractual entitlement, or any alternative basis justifying that course.
Despite those directions — and a subsequent refusal of permission to appeal against the directions order — no authority from Ms Wilde was ever produced. The issue remained unresolved for approximately twelve months.
HHJ Pearce drew a key distinction between whether an insurer can, in principle, bring contempt proceedings and whether it is entitled to pursue those proceedings in another person’s name. While accepting that there was “no absolute bar” to an insurer doing so, he held that Advantage had failed to establish any legal basis for proceeding in Ms Wilde’s name.
The judge rejected the submission that Advantage’s control of the underlying litigation answered the problem. The judge held that if Advantage wished to proceed in Ms Wilde’s name, it needed either her express permission or a contractual right permitting that course. Ben and Gary had relied on the authorities of both Novitas Loans v Amtrust Specialty [2026] EWHC 592 and BaoXiang v British Airways [2016] CP Rep 8 to demonstrate that: (1) “…Absent an express assignment, the doctrine of subrogation does not permit an insurer to sue in its own name” and that (2) it would be “a misuse of the process of the court for a law firm to issue proceedings in the name of a person who has not given it authority to do so.”
Given the seriousness of the allegations and where Mr Shaw was “at risk of committal to prison”, HHJ Pearce emphasised that the Respondent was “entitled to the proper procedural protections”.
The applications were struck out as an abuse of process and the applicants were ordered to pay Mr Shaw’s costs on the indemnity basis. HHJ Pearce subsequently refused permission to appeal. Advantage has recently confirmed that it will not be pursuing any further appeal against HHJ Pearce’s judgment.
The judgment is available here.
The Law Gazette reported the judgment here.
Ben and Gary’s instructing solicitor, Marc Livingston of Janes Solicitors, has published this article, setting out his further thoughts on the judgment.
Ben Bradley KC is a specialist personal injury practitioner with a focus on complex liability issues and catastrophic injury work. He is one of the few practitioners in the country who is able to combine his extensive clinical negligence/ personal injury experience with expertise in contempt proceedings. He is regularly instructed to provide advice and representation in cases where findings of fundamental dishonesty have been made in previous civil proceedings. He is recommended by both Legal 500 UK and Chambers & Partners.
To find out more about Ben, contact Paul Barton on +44 (0)207 427 4907 for a confidential discussion.
Call: 2007 Silk: 2025
Practice Director
