Insurance giant Allianz has told a London court that its £280,000 lawsuit against six pro-Palestinian activists is the only way it can recover losses from alleged paint attacks on two of its UK offices, in a case that pits one of the world's largest insurers against protesters who say they cannot afford legal representation.
Patrick Vincent KC, acting for Allianz, told Central London county court that the proceedings were "the appropriate and only forum in which to obtain compensation for the damage". The insurer reported a record €17.4 billion (£15 billion) profit last year.
Vincent conceded the activists were unlikely to qualify for legal aid, a circumstance he said was "now very common,” but maintained this was a situation "the courts are equipped to deal with and does not constitute an injustice".
The lawsuit has its roots in October 2024, when Palestine Action mounted a coordinated day of action against 10 Allianz offices across the UK, including the Guildford headquarters and London branches in Gracechurch Street and Bishopsgate.
Activists sprayed red paint across building facades, smashed windows and occupied the Guildford site, citing the insurer's then-investment in Israeli defence contractor Elbit Systems. Allianz has since confirmed it has ended its relationship with Elbit Systems UK.
The civil claim currently before the court focuses on incidents at the insurer's premises in the City of London and in Guildford, Surrey.
In written submissions, Allianz argued it "suffered substantial interference with its possession and enjoyment of both premises", which it said justified an award of substantial compensation. Its lawyers are also seeking damages for business disruption, which they acknowledged was "inherently challenging to quantify".
One of the respondents told the court that defending the lawsuit would interfere with the activists' "right to a fair trial", warning that filing a civil defence could compromise their position in parallel criminal proceedings, according to the Financial Times.
She described what she called an "extreme imbalance of power" between the protesters and the insurer, telling the court the activists believed the claimant was "intentionally leveraging this imbalance". The group, she added, had no legal representation for the civil matter.
The respondents have asked the court to pause proceedings until the criminal trials conclude. Vincent countered that Allianz would "sustain prejudice if its legitimate civil proceedings are delayed".
The barrister said the company was "entitled to have its civil claim decided", and that the burden lay on a defendant to show "a real risk of serious injustice, before any prejudice to a claimant can be relevant".
Allianz's legal team noted none of the six respondents had filed defences in the lawsuit and urged the judge to enter default judgment for the insurer. The company has nevertheless agreed to extend the deadline for the activists to file defences until June 2.
