Home / People / Carl Dray
Portrait of Carl Dray

Carl Dray


CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP
1-3 Charter Square
S1 4HS
United Kingdom
Languages English

Carl is a Partner in our Insurance and Reinsurance 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 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.

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.

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.
  • 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.
  • An international financial institution in claims relating to psychological injury and occupational stress.
  • 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


Janu­ary blues for the in­sur­ance in­dustry fol­low­ing be­ne­fits re­im­burse­ment...
We now have the Court of Ap­peal’s em­phat­ic judg­ment in R (Aviva In­sur­ance Ltd and Swiss Re­in­sur­ance Co Ltd) v. Sec­ret­ary of State for Work and Pen­sions al­low­ing the Sec­ret­ary of State’s ap­peal against...
Re-write of EL In­sur­ance not a mat­ter for the Court
The High Court re­cently held that an in­surer was en­titled to avoid an em­ploy­er’s in­sur­ance policy for non-dis­clos­ure and mis­rep­res­ent­a­tion. In Ko­m­ives v Hick Lane Bed­ding Lim­ited and AM Trust Europe...
Ap­peal in be­ne­fits re­im­burse­ment de­cision: in for a penny, in for a......
The Sec­ret­ary of State has ap­pealed the High Court’s rul­ing in R (Aviva In­sur­ance Ltd and Swiss Re­in­sur­ance Co Ltd) v. Sec­ret­ary of State for Work and Pen­sions, a ju­di­cial re­view case, and the Court...
The pre-ac­tion pro­to­cols are un­der scru­tiny, but is re­form needed for the...
The Civil Justice Coun­cil (CJC) has pub­lished its in­ter­im re­port on our cur­rent pre-ac­tion pro­to­cols (PAPs) and pos­sible im­prove­ments. There are nu­mer­ous PAPs gov­ern­ing pre-lit­ig­a­tion con­duct across a...
Gate wide open but play by the rules: Su­preme Court provides defin­it­ive...
The Su­preme Court has de­livered clear guid­ance on the tort gate­way and the treat­ment of for­eign law cases. The in­ter­pret­a­tion of dam­age is giv­en a broad mean­ing and how the pre­sump­tion of sim­il­ar­ity op­er­ates...
Un­con­tro­ver­ted Ex­pert Evid­ence – a Prom­ising De­cision for De­fend­ants 
A re­cent Court of Ap­peal judg­ment on a hol­i­day sick­ness claim has provided some clar­ity re­gard­ing the prop­er ap­proach to­wards un­con­tro­ver­ted ex­pert evid­ence. In Grif­fiths v TUI UK Lim­ited [2021] EW­CA...
Set-off in qual­i­fied one-way costs shift­ing – a shift away from de­fend­ants
The Su­preme Court has ruled that de­fend­ants owed costs in a per­son­al in­jury claim can­not set-off those costs against costs they owe to the claimant. This severely re­stricts the already very lim­ited scen­ari­os...
Ef­fect­ive ser­vice – when, where and how?
A re­cent case in the Tech­no­logy & Con­struc­tion Court high­lights the im­port­ance of know­ing when, where and how to serve in or­der to en­sure ef­fect­ive ser­vice of a claim form. Back­ground In Ti­ger Falkirk...
Pack­age hol­i­day pro­vider li­able for acts of hotel em­ploy­ee
Re­cent cla­ri­fic­a­tion from the Court of Justice of the European Uni­on has brought clos­ure to the UK Su­preme Court de­cision in X v Kuoni Travel Lim­ited. The UK­SC found that the pro­vider of a pack­age hol­i­day...
CMS In­ter­na­tion­al Dis­putes Di­gest - 2021 Sum­mer Edi­tion
Wel­come to the 2021 sum­mer edi­tion of our In­ter­na­tion­al Dis­putes Di­gest, a bi-an­nu­al pub­lic­a­tion fea­tur­ing ana­lys­is and com­ment­ary on the key trends cur­rently shap­ing the glob­al dis­pute res­ol­u­tion mar­ket.As...
Mas­ter rules school ought to have taken reas­on­able steps to pre­vent ex­pos­ure...
In a case that will be of par­tic­u­lar in­terest to the edu­ca­tion sec­tor, in­volving dec­ades-old al­leg­a­tions of as­bes­tos ex­pos­ure at an in­de­pend­ent board­ing school, the High Court has held that the test of...
Fail­ure to val­idly serve a bill of costs in­val­id­ated a de­fault costs cer­ti­fic­ate
In a de­cision that should op­er­ate as a salut­ary warn­ing to dis­putes law­yers, Costs Judge Le­onard has dis­missed a claimant’s at­tempts to rec­ti­fy the po­s­i­tion where avoid­able er­rors were made in ser­vice...