header-logo header-logo

Firm must answer questions on alleged ‘secret commissions’

12 May 2022
Categories: Legal News , Personal injury
printer mail-detail
Slater & Gordon has been ordered to provide details of alleged ‘secret commissions’ paid by an insurer, in a test case that could open the ‘floodgates’

The High Court this week ordered the firm to answer Part 18 requests for information from former personal injury clients Rhys Edwards and Wayne Raubenheimer.

Mr Justice Ritchie said the claimant’s ‘desire for answers from the defendant as to the secret commissions allegedly paid by a certain ATE insurer (now in liquidation) as a result of the ATE policy taken out in his personal injury claim by the defendant on his behalf’ lay at the root of the case. Ruling in the conjoined cases, Edwards v Slater and Gordon [2022] EWHC 1091 (QB), he overturned an earlier judge’s decision that the firm was within its rights in refusing to provide the information.

Ritchie J ordered that the part 18 requests be answered so ‘the judge can get a proper grasp of the issues, the claimants can determine whether there is anything to worry about, or whether it is all a storm in a teacup, and the defendant can consider whether to fight or settle the claims for alleged secret commissions’.

NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan, of City Law School, said: ‘This is but the opening bout in what may prove to be protracted litigation.

‘Should the claimants in the intended test cases succeed, floodgates could open wide. It could prove to be very expensive indeed. 

‘Mr Justice Ritchie has 35 years of injury experience and is absolutely on top of the subject. To deliver such a thorough judgment in a fortnight is quite astonishing.’

Categories: Legal News , Personal injury
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Burges Salmon—Lillian Mackenzie

Burges Salmon—Lillian Mackenzie

Projects and infrastructure team appoints partner in Edinburgh

Gateley Legal—Brian Dowling

Gateley Legal—Brian Dowling

Partner joins residential development team in Reading

DWF—Don Brown

DWF—Don Brown

Banking and finance team expands with strategic partner hire

NEWS
In this week's issue of NLJ, Emma Brunning and Dharshica Thanarajasingham of Birketts unpack the high-conflict financial remedy case TF v SF [2025] EWHC 1659 (Fam). The husband’s conduct—described by the judge as a ‘masterclass in gaslighting’—included hiding a £9.5m deferred payment from the sale of a port acquired post-separation. Despite his claims that the port was non-matrimonial, the court found its value rooted in marital assets and efforts
In his latest 'Civil way' column for this week's NLJ, Stephen Gold delivers a witty roundup of procedural updates and judicial oddities. From the rise in litigant-in-person hourly rates (£24 from October) to the Supreme Court’s venue hire options (canapés in Courtroom 1, anyone?), Gold blends legal insight with dry humour
Lord Neuberger, former president of the Supreme Court, shares his views on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in this week's NLJ with William Raven
In July, the Supreme Court quashed the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, ruling that trial judges had wrongly directed juries to treat profit-motivated Libor submissions as inherently dishonest. In this week’s NLJ, David Stern and James Fletcher of 5 St Andrew’s Hill reflect on the decision
Writing in NLJ this week, Nick Brett and Vicky Lankester of Brett Wilson dissect the chronic failures of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in meeting disclosure obligations. From the Post Office scandal to the collapsed trial of Liam Allan, they highlight how systemic neglect has led to wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice
back-to-top-scroll