Jackson v Thompsons Solicitors (A Firm) & Ors

Jackson v Thompsons Solicitors (A Firm) & Ors

The Claimant failed to prove that the Defendants procured a biased judge, unlawfully interfered with ATE insurance, or committed any actionable torts. The evidence did not establish actual or apparent bias, unlawful means, or causation of loss by the Defendants. The claim was dismissed in its entirety.

Parties
Claimant: David Jackson; 1st Defendant: Thompsons Solicitors (a Firm); 2nd Defendant: Stephen Cavalier; 3rd Defendant: Michael Antoniw; 4th Defendant: Philip King; 5th Defendant: Anthony Patterson; 6th Defendant: Geoffrey Shears; 7th Defendant: Robert Wood; 8th Defendant: Douglas Christie; 9th Defendant: Lawrence Lumsden; 10th Defendant: Templeton Insurance Limited; 11th Defendant: John Prescott, Baron Prescott of Kingston-upon-Hull
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Conspiracy, Breach of Contract, Deceit, Harassment, Judicial Bias, ATE Insurance, Solicitors’ Regulation, Damages
Tort Civil Procedure Insurance Law Professional Regulation Abuse of Process Conspiracy Breach of Contract Deceit +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Jackson

Claimant

Thompsons Solicitors (a Firm)

1st Defendant

Stephen Cavalier

2nd Defendant

Michael Antoniw

3rd Defendant

Philip King

4th Defendant

Anthony Patterson

5th Defendant

Geoffrey Shears

6th Defendant

Robert Wood

7th Defendant

Douglas Christie

8th Defendant

Lawrence Lumsden

9th Defendant

Templeton Insurance Limited

10th Defendant

John Prescott, Baron Prescott of Kingston-upon-Hull

11th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants unlawfully interfered with ATE insurance for GWM's clients
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants procured a biased judge to hear the GLO application
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants committed torts of conspiracy, abuse of process, deceit, or harassment

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant failed to prove that the Defendants procured a biased judge, unlawfully interfered with ATE insurance, or committed any actionable torts. The evidence did not establish actual or apparent bias, unlawful means, or causation of loss by the Defendants. The claim was dismissed in its entirety.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim is dismissed against all Defendants.
  • No damages are awarded to the Claimant.