What did the High Court ruling change for contempt claims?

It underscored that contempt applications against lawyers face a strict evidential and procedural bar. Without clear proof and proper process, courts will dismiss them. This reduces the short-term risk of punitive proceedings against solicitors and shifts disputes back toward conventional negligence claims where damages are compensatory, not punitive.

How does this affect Mishcon de Reya’s risk profile?

The dismissal of a contempt bid and the firm’s denial of negligence lower immediate liability and reputational pressures. Insurers may view the firm’s exposure as more stable near term, while any residual risk will depend on evidence in the administration dispute, especially on causation and quantifiable loss.

What must a claimant prove in professional negligence cases?

They must show duty, breach, causation, and loss on the balance of probabilities. Courts assess whether advice met the standard of a reasonably competent solicitor and whether any breach caused measurable financial harm. Procedural defects alone are insufficient without evidence linking them to actual loss.

Why does this matter for litigation funders in the UK?

A high bar for contempt narrows solicitor-focused punitive routes, so funders will emphasise strong negligence cases with clear causation and recoverable loss. Expect stricter case selection, closer expert engagement, and sharper budgeting to manage adverse costs and improve portfolio reliability.

Law and Government

Mishcon de Reya: Court Tosses Contempt Bid, Negligence Denied — February 25

ByDanny Kontos February 25, 2026

Mishcon de Reya features in two UK court developments that matter for investors. A High Court ruling dismissed attempts to bring a contempt claim against lawyers, and Mishcon de Reya denied professional negligence in a related administration dispute. Together, the outcomes point to a high threshold for contempt and reduced near‑term liability exposure. For the GB legal services market, this steadies insurer sentiment and lowers perceived reputational risk, while litigation funders may face tighter case screening for solicitor‑focused actions.