header-logo header-logo

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

Contempt of court

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll