Paul’s practice is generally split between the following main areas: insurance law (particularly motor), insurance fraud, personal injury / fatal accident, and consumer law. He also has considerable past experience of employment cases.
Insurance: Paul has significant and broad experience in this area. In relation to ‘pure’ insurance law issues, he has represented clients in relation to disputes between insurers, avoidance disputes between insured and insurer (including claims for contractual indemnity), disputes between insurers and third parties (e.g. issues arising under ss151-152 Road Traffic Act 1988), representations to third parties (such as the MIB, Financial Ombudsman Service, etc), and interpretation of insurance contracts and any resulting declaratory proceedings. His work has mostly been in connection with motor insurance, but he has also acted in cases involving disputes about life insurance and legal expenses policies. Mason v TNT and Groupama Insurance saw him acting for a successful insurer on a point of great significance to the industry: whether an insurer was liable for the ‘same damage’ as a tortfeasor for its (potential) breach of indemnity.
Paul also acts in insurance fraud cases (chiefly motor insurance). He has significant experience of drafting, advising and representing in the full range of fraud cases from the small opportunistic claims to large scale, nationwide, fraud rings. He also has considerable experience of declaratory proceedings, recovery actions (including tort of deceit), enforcement actions and committal proceedings. He was recently in the Court of Appeal in Hamid v Khalid and Co-Operative Insurance.
Personal injury / fatal accident: his work involves predominantly Multi-Track cases in the County or High Court and also includes appellate work in the High Court and Court of Appeal. He is also regularly instructed to attend mediations and JSMs. He has considerable experience acting for cruise companies and airlines in relation to personal injury claims arising from incidents at sea (involving jurisdictional issues and issues under the Athens Convention and The Merchant Shipping Act 1995) and on board aircraft.
Consumer: Paul is targeted as a leading junior for many of the most significant consumer law cases and has appeared in the County Court, High Court and Court of Appeal. His work involves vast experience of credit hire cases, including those of the greatest value and / or significance, including the seminal case of Burdis v Livsey. His work also involves issues arising under the Consumer Credit Act, the Package Tour Regulations, the flight cancellation Regulations (EU Regulation 261/2004), the Sale of Goods Act, the Supply of Goods and Services Act and the Consumer Protection Act.
Employment: Paul still undertakes work relating to injunctions or proposed / threatened injunctions (restraint of trade, restrictive covenants, delivery up, etc) but has otherwise steered his practice away from employment to concentrate on the above mentioned areas. Paul has significant experience of employment litigation (mostly instructed by Respondents) and has made a great number of appearances in the Tribunal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal and the Court of Appeal. Paul continues to act in all manner of employment cases on behalf of Advocate (formerly known as the Bar Pro Bono Unit).
Lord Justice Holker major scholarship award from Grays Inn (1996)
Lee Essay Prizewinner (1995) (judged by Lord Mustill)
Chartered Secretaries and Administrators Award for Excellence (achieving top A Level mark in the country, 1993)
Paul is one of only five ‘Band 1’ motor fraud specialists in the country. He ‘demonstrates considerable expertise’ in the area. He has also been recommended for personal injury and credit hire claims. He has been noted as being a ‘robust’, ‘well-prepared’, ‘careful and considerate’ advocate. Chambers and Partners 2022/3
Paul is again recommended as a Leading Junior in the section Personal Injury, Industrial Disease and Insurance Fraud. Legal 500 2022/3
Ranked in Band 1 in Motor Insurance Fraud and noted to be ‘a robust, well-prepared advocate’ and demonstrating ‘considerable expertise in a range of motor fraud cases, including those relating to exaggerated claims, fundamental dishonesty and staged accidents’. He was also noted for his strength in handling credit hire and personal injury matters. Chambers & Partners 2021
Recommended as a Leading Junior in the section Personal Injury, Industrial Disease and Insurance Fraud. Legal 500 2021
Recommended as having a ‘considerable expertise in a range of motor fraud cases, including those related to exaggerated claims, fundamental dishonesty and staged accidents’ and noted for ‘his strength in handling fraud ring matters’. He is noted to have a ‘tremendously endearing court manner’ and that ‘Judges like him and he’s persuasive’. He is also praised as being a ‘great advocate who is excellent on technical points.’ Chambers & Partners, 2020
Recommended in Tier 1, ‘Personal Injury, Industrial Disease and Insurance Fraud’ as “On top of his game – he is a leading expert in cases involving suspected fraud” Legal 500, 2020 (Band 1, Insurance Fraud)
‘He is a very good lawyer with a strong expertise in road traffic insurance law, personal injury and fraud work.’ Legal 500, 2019
“A persuasive advocate who is effective in his interaction with judges.” “A well-respected practitioner.” Noted as demonstrating “considerable expertise in a range of motor fraud cases, including those related to exaggerated claims, fundamental dishonesty and staged accidents. He is also noted for his strength in handling fraud ring matters.” Chambers and Partners, 2019
Recommended as demonstrating ‘considerable expertise’ in motor fraud cases and employing ‘enthusiasm and drive’. He is also noted to have an ability to ‘slowly take the opposition apart in an almost surgical fashion rather than in a theatrical style – he’s a silent assassin’ and to be ‘very strong both on paper and in court’, knowing ‘how to get the best result for the client’ and good at ‘understanding a large amount of information’. Chambers and Partners, 2018
Recommended in Tier 1, ‘Personal Injury, Industrial Disease and Insurance Fraud’ as ‘Experienced in all manner of motor insurance fraud cases’. Legal 500, 2017.
“Recommended for personal injury, motor and credit hire work”. Legal 500, 2015
“Very well regarded for all things personal injury, motor and credit hire”. Legal 500, 2014
Paul McGrath is recommended as a leading junior for consumer law and described as being “noted for his ‘deep knowledge of the issues'”. Legal 500, Consumer, 2013
“Paul McGrath is praised for his ‘robust and sensible advice'”. Legal 500, Employment, 2011
University of London LLB (Hons)
Inns of Court School of Law (BVC)
Dishonest litigant sentenced to 5 months’ immediate custody for false personal injury claim. Paul McGrath and James Henry, instructed by Benjamin Leech of Keoghs LLP, secured a committal order of immediate imprisonment for 5 months for contempt of court against Mr Robert Hall. Paul McGrath appeared in the committal hearing, and James Henry acted at sentencing stage.
Claim for National Minimum Wage pursued by foster carer providing emergency foster care. Whether salaried worker, whether unmeasured worker, whether ‘on call’ was time at work.
LAWRENCE V NCL (BAHAMAS) LTD (‘THE NORWEGIAN JADE’)  EWCA CIV 2222 (COURT OF APPEAL),  1 Lloyd’s Law Rep 607; Lloyd’s Maritime Law Newsletter (2018) 996 LMLN 1; Lloyd’s Law Reporter 22 January 2018;  EWHC (ADMLTY);  5 WLUK 109 (ADMIRALTY REGISTRAR, JERVIS KAY QC)
Claim in the Admiralty Division for an accident aboard a tender vessel. The judgment considers questions of the scope of the Athens Convention along with whether liability was established for an accident aboard a third party’s vessel.
Alleged fraud case. Court of Appeal decision following an insurers appeal against a finding that an accident had been proven on a balance of probabilities. Guidance given on when an appeal Court can interfere, when an acquittal of fraud can be set aside and the factors to be borne in mind, adequacy of reasons and the role that proportionality might have to play in this and whether an adverse inference ought to have been drawn. Appropriate costs order when fraud pleading fails to be proven.
Whether an insurer’s admission made under the MoJ Portal is binding on insured in separate proceedings.
Tort of deceit case considering the appropriate award in a staged road traffic cases for exemplary damages, considering the relevant authorities and approaches in other Courts.
Instructed by a non-party to advise, and draft potential argument, on the significant points in relation to impecuniosity and whether insured benefits are to be left out of account in the assessment of compensation.
Dickinson v Tesco plc and others  EWCA Civ 36;  All ER (D) 17 (the 'Autofocus Appeals')
Four tests cases in the Court of Appeal dealing with multiple issues of fraud, consumer law (particularly in relation to the hiring of vehicles in credit), and practice on appeals in relation to the introduction of fresh evidence.
Successful appeal. The normal rule was to order that costs be assessed forthwith. Under the CPR particular regard was to be had to proportionality. There was an element of proportionality in having all the costs dealt with on one occasion: it would be quicker to assess the costs at one hearing. However, that was not a sufficient reason to displace the normal rule. C was entitled to have his costs assessed in detail at the present stage. It was not pragmatic to award him costs and interest at a later date.
Court of Appeal decision on apportionment in a road traffic case involving sudden braking.
Grievance procedures. Lengthy but intractable grievance was judged to frustrate the object of the statutory grievance procedure and thus not qualifying as a grievance and the claim was accordingly time-barred.
Mason v TNT and Groupama Insurance (unrep. Oxford CC, HHJ Harris QC, lead case on insurance contribution) Available on Lawtel
Whether an insurer can be liable to a tortfeasor to contribute for its alleged breach of indemnity in dealing with the consequences of the tort. Meaning of ‘same damage’.
Gydnia America Shipping Lines (London) Limited -v- Chelminski  EWCA Civ 871;  ICR 1523;  IRLR 725;  3 All ER 666; (2004) 148 SJLB 877 Times LR (20 July 2004); Independent LR (9 July 2004)
Appeals in employment cases: time limits and required documentation.
Appeal against a finding of unfair dismissal. Appropriate test. Considering Sainsburys Supermarkets v Hitt.
Burdis v Livsey  EWCA Civ 510;  QB 36 (CA);  3 WLR 762 (Court of Appeal);  1 WLR 1751 (High Court) [petition to House of Lords refused:  1 WLR 394):
The seminal case on credit hire and credit repair and the appropriate measure of loss in such cases. Direct loss and consequential loss.
Paul McGrath Successfully Defends a Claim for c. £145,000 of Hire Charges
30th May 2022
Paul McGrath (instructed by Nasreen Rehman of Plexus Law) succeeded in defeating a claim for c. £145,000 hire charges on the basis that the Claimant’s own vehicle had been driven illegally (without a valid MoT). The Judge (HHJ Lethem, Central London CC), in a reserved judgment, undertook a comprehensive review of the relevant authorities and accepted Paul’s submissions and dismissed the entire claim for hire charges on grounds of causation and illegality: Agbalaya (available on Westlaw).
18th May 2022
Paul McGrath represented the respondents in an action brought by a former employer / competitor business for restraint of trade and delivery up (instructed by Vienna Kang Advocates). The respondents denied liability but agreed undertakings to avoid further litigation. The parties disagreed about costs. The High Court accepted the respondents’ submission that the approach of the former employer was ‘on the over-heavy side’ and accepted that there was an important public policy to encourage settlement:
View External Link
26th January 2022
We are delighted to announce that Paul McGrath has been appointed as a Recorder. Paul will continue to practise as a barrister and anticipates sitting as a Recorder for c.30 days per year.
View External Link
1st June 2021
Welcome to the latest edition of the TGC Fraud Update.
At the time of our last Update we were in the midst of the pandemic, a vaccine was a distant dream, and only a handful of remote hearings had led to findings of fundamental dishonesty and the exposure of insurance fraud.
As the cases reported in this edition of the Update demonstrate, the assessment of credibility through the medium of a remote video hearing has evolved into a practice with which representatives and judges are now familiar.
There does not appear to have been a downturn in the incidence of false claims, and there does not appear to have been a downturn in the exposure of those claims at trial. Those observations seem to be validated by the IFB’s estimations that, notwithstanding 3 national lockdowns, there have been 170,000 motor insurance claims in the last 15 months suspected to have been linked to crash-for-cash networks.
The way that we deal with cases may have changed, but those statistics and the current backlog of cases in the County Court certainly suggest that insurance fraud lawyers will be kept busy for the foreseeable future. It is important, however, to recognise that the time for the implementation of the whiplash reforms has finally arrived. It is an opportune moment to focus on the pressing questions for the industry: how will they work, and how will they affect us all? Will they achieve their stated aims of reducing whiplash claims while maintaining access to justice for genuinely injured parties? Will the mechanisms hinder or help the detection and prevention of fraud? We may not have all the answers right now, but Robert Riddell’s article ensures we are in the best position to be ready when the first cases cross our desks.
View External Link
3rd December 2019
Paul McGrath and James Henry, instructed by Benjamin Leech of Keoghs LLP, secured a committal order of immediate imprisonment for 5 months for contempt of court against Mr Robert Hall. Paul McGrath appeared in the committal hearing, and James Henry acted at sentencing stage.
TGC Costs Newsletter
10th December 2018
Please see link below to the latest update from the TGC Costs Team.
View External Link
2nd July 2018
TGC Fraud Update July 2018, a publication we have set up with the stated aim of facilitating the sharing of information about decided claims involving issues of road traffic fraud and related matters.
View External Link
13th June 2018
Temple Garden Chambers has appointed Paul McGrath as its Pro Bono Champion. Pro Bono Champions are Chambers’ representatives working closely with the Bar Pro Bono Unit to champion pro bono work and to encourage active participation in pro bono work within Chambers.
TGC Costs Newsletter
17th May 2018
Please see link below to the latest TGC Costs Newsletter.
View External Link
13th March 2018
Paul McGrath acted for the successful Appellant in an appeal before Mr Justice Foskett. The Master had refused the Defendant a retrospective extension of time to file and serve his orthopaedic evidence.
Court of Appeal to decide on Dispute over National Minimum Wage
18th January 2018
Paul McGrath appears before Court of Appeal concerning a dispute over whether a contract foster carer was paid the National Minimum Wage. Paul McGrath was acting pro bono.
QOCS AND SET-OFF: In the balance
5th December 2017
Paul McGrath highlights when defendants should consider obtaining an order and/or assessment of costs.
View External Link
27th November 2017
Paul McGrath appeared before the Court of Appeal on 23 and 27 November concerning whether a Claimant had proven that a cruise company was a contractual carrier or a performing carrier, whether a tender vessel was part of ‘course of carriage’ and whether the Claimant had proven fault or neglect on the part of the carrier(s).
21st September 2017
TGC Fraud Update September 2017, a publication we have set up with the stated aim of facilitating the sharing of information about decided claims involving issues of road traffic fraud and related matters.
View External Link
4th July 2017
Welcome to the very first edition of TGC’s Costs Newsletter! Costs has been a huge part of our practice at TGC for as long as it has been recognised as a discrete area of law. Whilst the team has naturally changed and evolved over that time, it has retained phenomenal strength and depth from its leadership right through to its most junior members. We pride ourselves on being leaders in the field and being able to offer a client service level second to none. We remain extremely grateful for our Directory recognition, and through 2017 we’ve reinvigorated our energy levels as a team being ever ready to serve!
View External Link
10th April 2017
Paul McGrath appeared in the Court of Appeal in the case of Hamid, which gave guidance in relation to appeals concerning fraud allegations.
10th November 2016
Admission made in MoJ Portal and claim settled – was this binding on insurer’s driver who later wanted to bring her own proceedings – could she apply to withdraw the admission – consideration of conflicting cases of Ullah v John and Malak v Nasim. Held: admission was binding and the admission could not be withdrawn given settlement; case struck out. Paul McGrath appeared for D1. Lionel Stride appeared for D2
Thank you for choosing to instruct me in your case. I will need to collect and hold your personal information in order to represent you. I will take all possible steps to protect your personal information. I am determined to do nothing that would infringe your rights or undermine your trust. This Privacy Notice describes the information I collect about you, how it is used and shared, and your rights regarding it.
I am registered with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) as a Data Controller for the personal data that I hold and process as a barrister. My registered address is Temple Garden Chambers, 1 Harcourt Buildings, Temple, London EC4Y 9DA and my registration number is Z7716147.
All, or the vast majority of, information that I hold about you is provided to or gathered by us in the course of your case and/or proceedings. Your solicitor and/or I will tell you why we need the information and how we will use it.
Our Lawful Basis for processing your information
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requires all organisations that process personal data to have a Lawful Basis for doing so. The Lawful Bases identified in the GDPR are:
- Consent of the data subject
- Performance of a contract with the data subject or to take steps to enter into a contract
- Compliance with a legal obligation
- To protect the vital interests of a data subject or another person
- Performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller.
- The legitimate interests of ourselves, or a third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests, rights or freedoms of the data subject.
Examples of legitimate interests include:
- Where the data subject is a client or in the service of the controller;
- Transmission within a group of undertakings for internal administrative purposes;
- Processing necessary to ensure network and information security, including preventing unauthorised access;
- Processing for direct marketing purposes, or to prevent fraud; and
- Reporting possible criminal acts or threats to public security.
Our Lawful Basis is acting as a legal representative providing advice and representation which may include direct (implied or express) consent, performing the services of a contract, complying with a legal obligation, protecting vital interests where appropriate (though unlikely to be applicable save for exceptional cases), performance of a task in the public interest or by Court Order, and and our Legitimate Interest is where the data subject is a client, where it is reasonably required to prevent unauthorised access, to prevent or detect fraud, and to report possible criminal acts or threats to public safety.
I use your information to:
- Provide legal advice and representation
- Assist in training pupils and mini-pupils
- Investigate and address your concerns
- Communicate with you about news, updates and events
- Investigate or address legal proceedings relating to your use of my services/products, or as otherwise allowed by applicable law
- Make statutory returns as required by, e.g. HMRC
I do not use automated decision-making in the processing of your personal data.
I collect and process both personal data and special categories of personal data as defined in the GDPR. This may include:
- Phone number;
- Payment or bank details;
- Date of birth;
- Location details;
- Device IP address;
- Financial information
- Medical Records
- Criminal Records
I may share your personal data with:
- Instructing solicitors
- Pupil, or mini pupil, under my training
- Opposing Counsel, for the purposes of resolving the case
- My Chambers management and staff who provide administrative services
- My regulator or legal advisors in the event of a dispute or other legal matter
- Law enforcement officials, government authorities, or other third parties to meet our legal obligations
- Any other party where I ask you and you consent to the sharing
Transfers to third countries and international organisations
I do not transfer any personal data to third countries or international organisations.
In the event that personal data is transferred to third countries or international organisations indirectly via the Temple Garden Chambers email service then I will satisfy myself that such transferred data is fully protected and safeguarded as required by the General Data Protection Regulation.
I retain your personal data while you remain a client unless you ask me to delete it and in which case I may retain it for purposes set out below. My Retention and Disposal Policy (copy available on request) details how long I hold data for and how I dispose of it when it no longer needs to be held. I will delete or anonymise your information at your request unless:
- There is an unresolved issue, such as claim or dispute;
- The information needs to be retained to protect my position in relation to any potential claim or complaint;
- I am legally required to; or
- There are overriding legitimate business interests, including but not limited to fraud prevention and protecting customers’ safety and security.
The General Data Protection Regulation gives you specific rights around your personal data. For example, you have to be informed about the information I hold and what I use it for, you can ask for a copy of the personal information I hold about you, you can ask us to correct any inaccuracies with the personal data I hold, you can ask us to stop sending you direct mail, or emails, or in some circumstances ask us to stop processing your details. Finally, if I do something irregular or improper with your personal data you can seek compensation for any distress you are caused or loss you have incurred. You can find out more information from the ICO’s website http://ico.org.uk/for_the_public/personal_information and this is the organisation that you can complain to if you are unhappy with how I dealt with you.
This is a Notice of recommended practice. The contents of this Notice are in no way contractual.
Accessing and Correcting Your Information
You may request access to, correction of, or a copy of your information by contacting me at Temple Garden Chambers, 1 Harcourt Buildings, Temple, London EC4Y 9DA.
You may opt out of receiving emails and other messages from me by following the instructions in those messages or alternatively emailing me directly with such a request.
- Validate users;
- Remember user preferences and settings;
- Determine frequency of accessing our content;
- Measure the effectiveness of advertising campaigns; and
- Analyse site visits and trends.
I will occasionally update my Privacy Notice. This Privacy Notice will be published on my website profile.