William is in trial virtually every week acting for insurers in defence of large and invariably exaggerated, often fraudulent credit hire claims. He acts exclusively for insurers in the field.
He is well-versed on handling the often substantial amounts of financial documentation that large hire claims can involve. He also has a deep understanding of the procedural requirements involved when giving disclosure or drafting pleadings which in such cases are so often inadequate and determinative.
Since the introduction of s.57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act, 2015, William has secured dozens of findings of fundamental dishonesty for his insurer clients. Since the introduction of QOCS, William now advises insurers about how to recover the costs of failed hire claims from the hire companies, especially after a finding of dishonesty, and is enjoying recent consistent success in the field.
Hassan v (1) Cooper and (2) Accident Claims Consultants Ltd  EWHC 540 (QB)
The High Court gave guidance on the proper approach to the quantification of counterclaims by a Defendant for exemplary damages in a fraudulent claim where both the Claimant and the Hire Company were involved in the fraud. Substantial awards of exemplary damages made against the hire company.
William is often counsel of choice in any commercial dispute involving difficult procedural matters. For example, he acted for the insurers in the recent, widely reported (see White Book, 2018) decision of the High Court, on appeal, in the case of Davies v (1) Carillion Energy Services Ltd (2) His Energy Ltd (In Liquidation)  EWHC 3206 (QB) where the Court clarified the proper approach to the question of abuse of process, post Mitchell and Denton, to second claims issued after a first has been struck out for procedural reasons.
Haider v DSM Demolition Ltd  EWHC 2712 (QB): William successfully defended a client at the High Court in a rear end shunt claim. This appeal and cross appeal was about a road traffic accident that the Defendant alleged had been staged. Ultimately, the Defendant succeeded in demonstrating that the Claimant had presented a claim that was fundamentally dishonest, albeit that the Court found that his dishonesty related to quantum rather than liability. William has written an article about the case which you can download here. You can also read the full judgment.