Jonathan Hough QC

Acting for an insurance underwriting agency in litigation over its entitlement to continued use of its bespoke IT and claims platform; injunctive proceedings (2015).

Acting for the defendant insurance underwriting agency in claims by solicitors put at over £8 million and arising from legal expenses insurance schemes.  In early 2016, Jonathan appeared successfully in an application to strike out claims of over £3 million.  The application raised novel arguments based on agency and unjust enrichment.

In 2013-14, Jonathan acted in multiple seven-figure arbitral claims brought by an accident management company against various panel firms of solicitors.

A substantial fire claim arising from allegedly negligent design of a fire suppression system for industrial grinding machines.

Acting for one of the UK’s largest general insurance companies on an eight-figure claim arising from an insurance distribution agreement with a major retail company (2012-13).

A dispute over a large property transaction.  The appeal concerned the entitlement of a defendant to accept a Part 36 offer.  It decided important questions on the provisions of Part 36, including whether it was possible to make a time-limited Part 36 offer.

Appeal in test cases which concerned the obligation of insurers to pay very large claims for the financial consequences of damage to the railway infrastructure.  The appeal is an important authority in the law of remoteness of damage in tort.

A dispute between a leading underwriting agency and its capacity provider concerning revocation of binding authority and the run-off of a Binder.  The arbitration was the subject of appeals to the High Court (Beatson J) and the Court of Appeal.  Jonathan also acted in separate but similar proceedings for the same agency against a second capacity provider.

A multi-jurisdictional product liability / professional indemnity coverage dispute under Global Policies and a local Australian liability policy.  The case arose out of a claim against the insured in arbitration concerning the failure of a large piece of mining equipment.  Jonathan appeared in Commercial Court proceedings concerning jurisdiction / anti-suit injunction: [2016] Lloyd’s Rep IR 578.  He also appeared successfully in the trial of the action in the Commercial Court in Sydney: [2017] NSWSC 259.

A dispute between a legal expenses underwriting agency and panel solicitors involving claims totalling over £8 million.  Jonathan successfully applied for summary judgment and to strike out a substantial portion of the claims, defeating novel arguments based on unjust enrichment and agency.

Appearing successfully for Royal & Sun Alliance in lead case litigation in the Commercial Court and Court of Appeal.  The dispute concerned the commercial model by which RSA handled and pursued subrogated motor claims.  It raised issues as to the proper analysis of vehicle damage claims and insurance subrogation, and had major financial ramifications in the motor insurance market.

Appeal in test cases which concerned the obligation of insurers to pay very large claims for the financial consequences of damage to the railway infrastructure.  The appeal is an important authority in the law of remoteness of damage in tort.

A coverage dispute in which a commercial litigant challenged the decision of a legal expenses insurer to avoid an ATE policy based on allegations and findings of dishonesty in the underlying litigation.

A dispute between a leading underwriting agency and its capacity provider concerning revocation of binding authority and the run-off of a Binder.  The arbitration was the subject of appeals to the High Court (Beatson J) and the Court of Appeal.  Jonathan also acted in separate but similar proceedings for the same agency against a second capacity provider.

Jonathan acted for a large consumer electronics company in multiple claims against insurers arising out of a major cyber intrusion.  First, he acted in 2015 in a coverage arbitration concerning litigation costs of foreign group litigation.  Secondly, he acted in a seven-figure claim under business interruption insurance (2016-17).

A £16 million professional indemnity insurance coverage dispute in Commercial Court proceedings.  The dispute concerned coverage for mitigation costs arising out of an FSA-mandated consumer remediation exercise.

A Commercial Court claim in 2011 for £6 million under a personal disablement insurance relating to a training injury of an England first team football player.  Jonathan acted for the insurance market in the litigation.

Acting for a Glencore subsidiary in a US$ 6 million dispute with South African and Mauritian insurers relating to a property risk in Zambia.  The case raised complex issues of enforceability of a cut-through agreement with reinsurers.  In Commercial Court proceedings, reinsurers initially raised jurisdictional challenges which they abandoned at the last moment.  The dispute was settled before trial.

Acting for motor insurers in a series of appeals in the Court of Appeal and House of Lords concerning accident management and credit hire / repair schemes.  Reported cases include: Burdis v Livsey [2003] QB 36; Lagden v O’Connor [2004] AC 1067; Thew v Cole [2004] RTR 25; Purushothaman v Malik [2012] RTR 21; Singh v Yaqubi [2013] Lloyd’s Rep IR 398; Opoku v Tintas [2013] EWCA Civ 1299; McBride v UK Insurance / Clayton v EUI [2017] EWCA Civ 144.  Also acted for the ABI in proceedings before the OFT and CAT concerning the industry protocol for settlement of credit hire claims.  Recently, advised motor insurers in relation to the CMA investigation into the industry.

A claim by Norwich Union / Aviva to recover substantial sums paid many years previously to a third party claimant in a personal injury claim, based on discovery of evidence that the claim had been dishonest.  Jonathan successfully acted for Aviva in the trial and resisted permission to appeal.  He then also acted in successful enforcement proceedings involving tracing claims in relation to various investment properties.

A successful strike-out application in claims by an individual to be indemnified by various legal expenses insurers in respect of multiple unsuccessful professional liability claims against solicitors.

A dispute worth several million pounds between insurer and insured under professional indemnity policies.  The case raised the question to which of two consecutive policies certain substantial claims for mitigation costs cover should relate, which in turn raised issues of the scope and legal effects of notifications of circumstances.  Further issues concerned alleged free-standing agreements by a loss adjuster; limitation and attribution of payments; and cover for litigation costs. Jonathan acted for the defendant insurer, which was successful on appeal.

A substantial arbitrated dispute under a D&O insurance as to whether the policy covered defence costs in important foreign proceedings.

A substantial arbitrated dispute concerning the right of trade credit insurers to avoid a policy for alleged non-disclosure.

Landmark case concerning Article 5 rights in the context of hospital intensive care.  The first case to consider the circumstances in which a person is “deprived of liberty” in an ICU.  Jonathan appeared in the Divisional Court and Court of Appeal for the coroner whose decision on the issue was upheld at both levels.

Acting as counsel to the inquiry, appointed by Lord Justice Goldring, in these historic inquests from 2013 to 2016.  Jonathan was responsible for the legal argument on behalf of the inquiry team and examined half the key witnesses.  He advised the Judge on public law issues and acted for him as an interested party in a JR claim by police officers against a PCC’s funding decision: R (Duckenfield) v SYPCC [2015] EWHC 3149 (Admin).

Acting as counsel to the inquiry in the inquests into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Al Fayed.  He appeared for the coroners, Lord Justice Scott Baker and Lady Butler-Sloss in all the satellite litigation: R (Paul) v HM Coroner for the Queen’s Household [2008] QB 172; HM Asst Deputy Coroner v Channel 4 TV Corp. [2008] 1 WLR 945; R (Paul) v HM Asst Deputy Coroner for Inner West London [2008] 1 WLR 1335; R (Al Fayed) v HM Asst Deputy Coroner for Inner West London [2008] EWHC 713 (Admin).

Acting as counsel to the inquiry in the inquest into the shooting of Jean-Charles de Menezes by firearms officers.  Jonathan successfully resisted the challenge to the coroner’s initial decision to adjourn the inquest pending criminal proceedings: R (Pereira) v HM Coroner for Inner South London [2007] 1 WLR 3256.  He also successfully resisted an urgent judicial review challenge to Sir Michael Wright’s jury directions: R (de Menezes) v Asst Deputy Coroner [2008] EWHC 3356 (Admin).

Acting as counsel to the inquiry in these major inquests into one of the worst rail disasters in recent UK history.  Over the two-month inquests hearing, Jonathan examined a large number of the key witnesses.

Appearing successfully in this case which established a coroner’s right to obtain from a Local Safeguarding Children Board the reports prepared in a Serious Case Review into the death of a child.  The case was of such importance as to result in a Chief Coroner’s Law Sheet being published about it.

A judicial review challenge by a West Midlands bus company to a concessionary reimbursement scheme and decisions of an Integrated Transport Authority.  The judgement is the leading authority on the interpretation and application of important provisions of the statutory scheme for concessionary reimbursement of bus operators.

Judicial review claim against the national professional association for accountants, raising serious issues of substantive and procedural unfairness in professional disciplinary proceedings.

Leading case on standards of causation in coroners’ narrative verdicts in Article 2 inquests.  Jonathan successfully resisted the claim and appeal, the Court of Appeal holding that the state’s procedural obligation under Article 2 does not require a coroner’s inquests to make findings on matters which were not causally relevant to death.

Acting successfully for a local authority in proceedings to claim injunctions prohibiting illegal street trading by an organised group in the Bankside area of London.  Jonathan later acted successfully in a similar claim by another local authority against the same group, which had by then moved to a different part of London: Lambeth LBC v Sanli and Meli [2012] EWHC 1623 (QB).

Jonathan advised the Wiltshire coroner on the inquest concerning the nerve agents experiments at the MOD Porton Down facility in the 1950s.  He appeared for the coroner in both judicial review challenges to the inquest.  See R (MOD) v HM Coroner for Wiltshire and Swindon [2006] 1 WLR 134 and [2006] Inquest LR 32.

Successfully resisting a challenge to the conclusions of a coroner in a complex death in hospital inquest.

In this widely-reported case, the Divisional Court considered the lawfulness of a policy adopted by the Defendant Coroner that she would not prioritise the handling of any death for religious reasons.  The Court’s conclusion was that the policy was an unlawful fetter on discretion and unreasonable; infringed Article 9 and Article 14 rights; and was discriminatory.  Jonathan acted for the Chief Coroner of England and Wales, who was an interested party, and he made submissions critical of the policy which were accepted by the Court.

Important Court of Appeal decision in which the Court concluded that the standard of proof for findings of suicide in coroners’ courts should be the civil standard, rather than the criminal standard (which had been generally thought to apply before this case).  The Court also addressed the standard of proof for findings of unlawful killing, holding that it remained the criminal standard.  Jonathan appeared for the Chief Coroner, intervening to assist the Court.

One of the most important House of Lords authorities in the field of consumer credit, and the case which decided that UK domestic consumer credit law was compatible with the ECHR (Article 6 and A1P1).  The case also raised important issues of restitutionary remedies being sought to circumvent statutory bars on enforcement.  Jonathan appeared for intervening insurers, whose arguments were accepted on all issues.

Leading Court of Appeal authority on the enforceability of “top up” mortgage agreements and on “multiple agreements” under the CCA 1974.  Jonathan appeared for the successful mortgage lender in the appeal.

Advising a large specialist lender on commercial issues concerning consumer credit legislation, including potential liabilities for defaults of third party introducers under section 75, CCA 1974; and credit brokerage licensing under the FSMA Regulated Activities Order.

Acting for motor insurers in a series of appeals in the Court of Appeal and House of Lords concerning accident management and credit hire / repair schemes.  Reported cases include: Burdis v Livsey [2003] QB 36; Lagden v O’Connor [2004] AC 1067; Thew v Cole [2004] RTR 25; Purushothaman v Malik [2012] RTR 21; Singh v Yaqubi [2013] Lloyd’s Rep IR 398; Opoku v Tintas [2013] EWCA Civ 1299; McBride v UK Insurance / Clayton v EUI [2017] EWCA Civ 144.  Also acted for the ABI in proceedings before the OFT and CAT concerning the industry protocol for settlement of credit hire claims.  Recently, advised motor insurers in relation to the CMA investigation into the industry.

Acting for the defendant firm of solicitors in a £120 million claim based on allegedly negligent advice on credit documentation and the effects of the Consumer Credit Acts and supplementary regulations.

Appearing successfully at the trial concerning enforceability of a mortgage debt of £6 million.  The case raised issues under the CCA 1974, the FSMA 2000 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.