Jason MacAdam defeats insurance company’s attempt to obtain High Court Judge’s permission to commit for criminal contempt
June 28, 2018
Separate but conjoined Contempt proceedings were initiated against a total of 7 defendants by an insurance company. Mr MacAdam’s lay client, a paralegal and former employee of a Manchester personal injury claimant firm of solicitors, was alleged to have been part of a team of lawyers and medical clinicians who conspired together to inflate insurance claims by submitting invoices for medical services which had not in fact been provided.
In support of its claim the insurers relied upon the account of a further whistleblowing defendant and over 70 other cases in which the alleged conspirators had been involved. Proceedings had been initiated in February 2017 against just two individuals but later were expanded to include others including Mr MacAdam’s lay client.
The matter was to have been concluded in November 2017 before Morris J but had been adjourned for a 2 day contested permission hearing in June. The matter finally came before Andrews J at the High Court at Manchester’s Civil Justice Centre. Mr MacAdam’s submission, building upon three previously submitted skeleton arguments, was that, permission should not be granted because there was not a shred of admissible evidence that his lay client had conspired with anyone at all was accepted by the learned Judge. Permission was denied and a costs order was made in the defendant’s favour. The proceedings against some other defendants continue.