header-logo header-logo

Contempt of court

05 September 2014
Issue: 7620 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Zurich Insurance plc v Kay and others [2014] EWHC 2734 (QB), [2014] All ER (D) 29 (Aug)

The first defendant brought a claim against the claimant insurer as a result of a fall in a car park. The second and third defendants, his wife and stepson respectively, gave evidence in support of the first defendant’s claim. The claimant denied the claim on the basis that the case was based on an audacious lie, and that the first defendant and his family had attempted fraudulently to repackage a vacation mishap as a very valuable claim for compensation. The claimant applied to commit the defendants for contempt of court. The Queen’s Bench Division dismissed the application.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll