An insolvent Liechtenstein insurer's aggressive legal pursuit has ended in a messy courtroom reckoning over who foots a multi-million-pound bill.
In a judgment handed down on December 23, 2025, the High Court waded through the wreckage of Gable Insurance AG's costly recovery efforts against William Dewsall, his wife Judith, Michael Hirschfield, and consultancy firm Horatio Risk Consulting LLP. The insurer, now in liquidation, had won at trial against Dewsall and Horatio but lost against Judith. What remained was the awkward business of divvying up expenses from freezing orders, a search raid, and a failed hunt for phantom offshore accounts.
The numbers tell much of the story. Costs tied to the search order alone came to around £4.8 million. That figure covers obtaining the order, executing it, and the painstaking work that followed, including privilege reviews and relevance assessments of seized materials.
For insurance professionals watching from the sidelines, this case offers a cautionary tale about the risks of going in heavy during asset recovery. Gable deployed two worldwide freezing orders and a search order, then pursued a contempt application when the Dewsalls initially refused to let the search team into their home. The court found some of these tactics were, to put it plainly, over the top.
William Dewsall came out worst. The judge ordered him to pay Gable's costs for the first freezing order and the search order on an indemnity basis, a harsher measure reserved for conduct that falls outside the norm. Evidence showed he had hidden assets, obstructed the search, destroyed and concealed documents, and even threatened members of the search team.
Horatio, which never bothered to show up or engage with proceedings, was told to pay Gable's full search order costs on the standard basis and half of the second freezing order costs on the standard basis.
Judith Dewsall presented a thornier question. She had successfully defended the claim against her, yet the search had turned up over 1,000 previously undisclosed documents on her devices. In the end, the court made no order as to costs between her and Gable on the search order. The judge reasoned that, had the claim been against her alone, a search order would likely never have been pursued. She was awarded her costs of the main proceedings on the standard basis.
The second worldwide freezing order, however, backfired spectacularly. Gable had obtained an investigative report claiming the Dewsalls held substantial sums in overseas accounts. When the insurer tried to enforce the order abroad, it discovered those accounts did not exist. A BVI court later described the report as "absolutely no evidence whatsoever" of assets. The English court refused to continue the worldwide order, settling instead for a domestic freezing order.
The fallout was telling. Dewsall was ordered to pay half of Gable's costs for the second freezing order on an indemnity basis. Judith was similarly ordered to pay half on the standard basis, but Gable was also required to pay half of her costs on an indemnity basis, a direct consequence of its unreasonable reliance on the discredited report by the return date hearing.
The contempt application fared little better. The court criticised Gable's choice to pursue a heavy-handed route when a more proportionate step would have sufficed. Dewsall was ordered to pay only half of Gable's costs on the standard basis, and no order was made between Gable and Judith.
For insurers considering aggressive recovery tactics, this judgment is a reminder that winning the war does not guarantee winning every battle, and the costs of overreach can be steep.
