Home / People / Carl Dray
Carl Dray

Carl Dray


CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP
1 South Quay
Victoria Quays
S2 5SY
United Kingdom
Languages English

Carl is a Partner in our Dispute Resolution group. Carl, and his team, defend a range of personal injury claims from high value seven figure sum catastrophic claims to smaller claims with either a strategic importance to set precedent for other claims or where there is a high risk of reputational damage to the client. He is an expert in group litigation and has been involved in many of the most high profile group actions in the UK. He has experience of product liability in the consumer and industrial sectors. He exclusively advises defendants in litigation. Carl has experience of mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution as well as litigation in the High Court and Appellant courts in England and Wales.

Carl also defends corporates and their directors and other professionals in criminal investigations. He is familiar with providing risk evaluation, dealing with incidents, representing clients in their dealings with the HSE and representation at PACE interviews with the enforcing authorities and in conducting inquests and proceedings before criminal tribunals.

more less

"Quietly confident, steely and combative" and "gives clear and unambiguous advice."

Legal 500

Relevant experience

  • Department of Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) on defending a group action involving claims against the former British Coal Corporation arising out of alleged injuries to the knee by former mineworkers (estimated value £4bn).
  • BEIS/Coal Products Limited on claims for respiratory illness and cancers arising at various manufacturing plants across the UK. The case involves over 350 former workers and their families.
  • A major mining corporation on defending accident claims, including five fatalities.
  • Advising a number of international companies (commercial, infrastructure and financial services) on asbestos related disease claims arising out of exposure in the United Kingdom and abroad.
  • A major US corporation on industrial injuries and health and safety issues arising out of various industrial plants (power plants, aviation, plant and equipment hire and logistics and chemicals/plastics) operating in the United Kingdom.
  • Defending an international financial institution in claims relating to psychological injury and occupational stress.
  • Acting for large manufacturing clients on defending claims arising from the production of aggregates, minerals and the manufacture of associated products.
more less


  • 1977 – B.A (Hons) Nottingham Trent
more less


Show only
4 December 2017
Risk Mat­ters: In­sur­ance Sec­tor Up­date (Winter 2017/18)
Li­ab­il­ity and the risks of sup­ply chain
Re­cent news stor­ies in the UK have once again raised con­cerns over large sup­ply chains and food safety stand­ards. In June, it was re­por­ted that traces of lis­teria bac­teri­um were dis­covered in pre-pack­aged sand­wiches at eight dif­fer­ent NHS hos­pit­als around the.
Court of Ap­peal con­firms that a so­li­cit­or has no duty to alert an­oth­er...
The Court of Ap­peal has con­firmed that a so­li­cit­or’s duty to the court does not cre­ate an ob­lig­a­tion to draw an­oth­er party’s at­ten­tion to a de­fect in ser­vice. The back­ground In Wood­ward & an­oth­er v Phoenix Health­care Dis­tri­bu­tion Ltd [2019] EW­CA Civ 985, Mr.
High Court ap­plies a "high test" for avoid­ing fixed costs in cases...
The High Court has ap­plied a “high test” when con­sid­er­ing wheth­er a claimant could re­cov­er more than fixed costs in a case that had been re­moved from the pro­tocol for low-value per­son­al in­jury claims in road traffic ac­ci­dents.
High Court gives guid­ance on pro­por­tion­al­ity in costs as­sess­ments
One of the corner­stones of Lord Justice Jack­son’s costs re­forms is that costs should be pro­por­tion­ate to the mat­ter at is­sue. In a rare High Court de­cision ex­amin­ing this test, Mar­cus Smith J has giv­en guid­ance on how it is to be ap­plied.
Pen­al­ties for not beat­ing claimant’s Part 36 of­fer in lit­ig­a­tion tempered...
In two cases fa­vour­able to the pay­ing parties, the courts have cla­ri­fied the ap­plic­a­tion of the 10% up­lift pay­able to a claimant that has beaten its own Part 36 of­fer. The courts con­sidered wheth­er an up­lift of less than 10% can be ordered and wheth­er in­terest.
Court of Ap­peal con­firms that a party seek­ing third party dis­clos­ure...
The Court of Ap­peal has over­turned a de­cision re­quir­ing a small com­pany to pay part of the costs of a third-party dis­clos­ure ap­plic­a­tion after it had not com­plied with an in­form­al re­quest for doc­u­ments.
Meso­the­lioma claims: no dam­ages for loss of in­come where con­tinu­ing...
The High Court has held that claimants whose life ex­pect­ancy has been re­duced by an in­jury can­not re­cov­er loss of in­come for the “lost years” fol­low­ing their death where, as a res­ult of sur­viv­ing di­vidend in­come, there is no over­all loss to the es­tate.
Hol­i­day ac­ci­dent claims - Broad scope for civil claims against in­surers...
In Lackey –v- Mal­lorca Mega Re­sorts SL (1) Gen­er­ali Es­pana De Se­gur­os Y Reasecuros SA (2) the Claimant was a 41 year old fe­male resid­ing in Eng­land. She was a guest at the First De­fend­ant’s Span­ish Re­sort as part of a large group book­ing for 22 per­sons.
In­dem­nity costs awar­ded after claim dis­con­tin­ued mid-tri­al
Claimants who dis­con­tin­ued their case four days in­to a six-week tri­al were ordered to pay the de­fend­ants’ costs on the in­dem­nity basis after their con­duct was deemed out of the norm. Back­ground Hosk­ing & An­or v Apax Part­ners LLP & Ors [2018] EWHC 2732 (Ch).
Money (That’s What I Want): Fail­ure to warn leads to deni­al of a non-party...
In an ac­tion for copy­right in­fringe­ment in a doc­u­ment­ary about a 1964 con­cert giv­en by The Beatles, the Court of Ap­peal over­turned a non-party costs or­der against a com­pany dir­ect­or. The ab­sence of an early warn­ing was a key factor in de­cid­ing that the dir­ect­or.
Court of Ap­peal nar­rows non-party ac­cess to ma­ter­i­als on court file
The Court of Ap­peal has nar­rowed the cat­egor­ies of doc­u­ments that are to be made avail­able to an as­bes­tos vic­tims’ sup­port group fol­low­ing a ma­jor as­bes­tos li­ab­il­ity tri­al in which the group was not it­self in­volved.