Benjamin Williams QC is a commercial practitioner with an emphasis on insurance related disputes. He has particular expertise in the field of motor insurance and the MIB, having acted in almost all of the major appellate cases in the long-running credit hire litigation.
Ben is also an expert on the law relating to solicitors, having for many years been an editor of Cordery on Legal Services. Although especially well-known for his expertise in funding arrangements, retainers, costs and legal expenses insurance, Ben also acts in solicitors negligence claims and a wide range of disciplinary and regulatory matters touching solicitors and claims management organisations.
Ben is also widely instructed in general matters of civil procedure, especially at an appellate level, having a strong reputation as a ‘problem-solver’ to whom solicitors turn when a case is in procedural trouble, for example where relief from sanction is required.
He is also acknowledged as an expert on consumer law, having been at the forefront of the challenges to the now repealed ‘Doorstep Selling’ regulations, and various claims management schemes such as Claims Direct and TAG.
He is recommended in these areas by the major legal directories.
The Legal 500 describe Ben as ‘a tenacious cross-examiner, who quickly gets on top of the facts‘, ‘there is no one brighter at the Bar’ (2017), Ben ‘explains complex arguments easily’ (2019).
Described in previous years by Chambers & Partners as “as good as it comes. If you’re looking for somebody who’ll get to the heart of an issue at warp speed, he’s your man.” “Legally he’s without compare, and he’s also shrewd and is a very determined advocate.” “He is known for the depth of his research and his ability to come at things from a fresh angle. He always adds something to a case.” “His paperwork is very lucid and compelling.” ‘An absolute genius in terms of his eloquence and ability to react to issues when in court’; as a ‘quick-witted, brave and eloquent advocate who continually impresses with his general brilliance’; as ‘mesmerising’ in court where his ‘arguments are very difficult to defeat’; and as someone who ‘can take on anything and do it to a high standard’.
Reported cases include:
- Bird v Acorn Group  CP Rep 8 (CA)
- Howe v MIB  1 WLR 2751 (QBD)
- Eurasian Natural Resources Corp v Decherts LLP  1 WLR 5027 (CA)
- Webb v Liverpool Women’s NHST  1 WLR 3899 (CA)
- Broadhurst v Tan  1 WLR  (CA)
- Coventry v Lawrence  1 WLR 3485 (SC)
- Eurasian Natural Resources Ltd v Decherts  1 WLR 462 (ChD)
- Dalton v British Telecom  ICR 901 (QBD)
- Jones v Secretary of State for Energy  3 All ER 956 (CA)
- Ali v Ali  RTR 6 (QBD)
- Jones v Secretary of State for Energy  3 All ER 1041 (CA)
- Singh v Yaqubi  Lloyd’s Rep IR 398 (CA)
- Bent v Highways & Utilities Construction  Lloyd’s Rep IR 577 (CA)
- Mulcaire v News Group Newspapers  Ch 435 (ChD)
- Sayce v TNT  1 WLR 1261 (CA)
- Motto v Trafigura  1 WLR 657 (CA)
- W v Veolia Environmental Services  1 All ER (Comm) 667 (Comm Ct)
- Sousa v Waltham Forest LBC  1 WLR 2197 (CA)
- Drew v Whitbread PLC  1 WLR 1725 (CA)
- O’Beirne v Hudson  1 WLR 1717 (CA)
- Copley v Lawn  1 All ER (Comm) 890 (CA)
- Aehmed v LSC (2009) The Times 4 May (CA)
- Roach v Home Office  QB 256 (QBD)
- C v W  4 All ER 1129 (CA)
- Tankard v John Fredericks Plastics Ltd  1 WLR 1731 (CA)
- McCall v Poulton  Lloyd’s Rep IR 456 (CA)
- Hall v Stone (2008) The Times 1 February (CA)
- Bee v Jenson (No 2)  4 All ER 791 (CA)
- Bee v Jenson (No 1)  Lloyd’s Rep IR 451 (Comm)
- Rogers v Merthyr Tydfil CBC  1 WLR 808 (CA)
- Garrett v Halton BC  1 WLR 554 (CA)
- Kearsley v Klarfeld  2 All ER 303 (CA)
- U v Liverpool City Council  1 WLR 2657 (CA)
- Lagden v O’Connor  1 AC 1067 (HL)
- Hollins v Russell  1 WLR 2487 (CA)
- Crosbie v Munroe  1 WLR 2033 (CA)
- King v Daltray (2003) The Times 15 January (CA)
- Clark v Ardington; Burdis v Livsey  QB 36 (CA)
- Sarwar v Alam  1 WLR 125 (CA)