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


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...
Non-party dis­clos­ure and CPR 31.17 –suc­cess for claimants in his­tor­ic as­bes­tos...
A re­cent de­cision of the High Court on ap­peal, re­vers­ing an earli­er dis­missal of a claimant’s ap­plic­a­tion for non-party dis­clos­ure, is an­oth­er fa­vour­able res­ult for claimants in his­tor­ic as­bes­tos claims...
Com­pens­a­tion scheme does not be­ne­fit from without pre­ju­dice pro­tec­tion
The High Court has de­term­ined that a com­pens­a­tion scheme set up to com­pensate vic­tims of sexu­al ab­use is ad­miss­ible at tri­al and can be used as evid­ence to sup­port a claim of vi­cari­ous li­ab­il­ity. The...
In­dus­tri­al dis­ease claims: lim­it­a­tion and claimant’s date of know­ledge 
The Lim­it­a­tion Act 1980 states that a claim must be made with­in three years of the date of know­ledge and that date of know­ledge is the date on which the claimant first had know­ledge that his in­jury was...
Avi­ation claims: com­pens­a­tion pay­able for flight can­cel­la­tion due to pi­lot’s...
“The con­sumer’s right to com­pens­a­tion un­der the Reg­u­la­tion can­not de­pend on when and where the mem­ber of staff ate the sus­pect prawn sand­wich” – Coulson LJ, Lipt­on v BA City Fly­er Ltd [2021] EW­CA...
New parties can­not be ad­ded to an is­sued claim form without con­sent
A re­cent de­cision in the High Court (Vari­ous Claimants v G4S plc [2021] EWHC 524 (Ch)) has high­lighted the po­ten­tial pit­falls for claimants when at­tempt­ing to in­clude new parties in­to pro­ceed­ings when...
Court of Ap­peal high­lights the im­port­ance of clar­ity in Part 36 of­fers
A re­cent Court of Ap­peal judg­ment high­lighted the im­port­ance of clar­ity in draft­ing Part 36 of­fers.  In Seab­rook v Adam [2021] ECWA Civ 382, the claimant’s fail­ure to provide ex­press terms with­in the...
Pack­age hol­i­day op­er­at­ors may be li­able for the crim­in­al acts of hotel...
The Court of Justice of the European Uni­on has handed down its much-awaited judg­ment in X v Kuoni Travel Ltd C-578/19 on the cir­cum­stances in which pack­age hol­i­day op­er­at­ors can be li­able for the ac­tions...
Loc­al au­thor­ity not vi­cari­ously li­able for a cor­por­ate sub-con­tract­or to...
The High Court has held that a loc­al au­thor­ity was not vi­cari­ously li­able for ab­use com­mit­ted by an em­ploy­ee of a private chil­dren’s home run by an in­de­pend­ent cor­por­ate sub-con­tract­or. The court also...
Court can re­quire at­tend­ance of a leg­al rep­res­ent­at­ive in ap­plic­a­tions...
Civil Pro­ced­ure Rule 46.8(2) states that leg­al rep­res­ent­at­ives have a choice as to wheth­er to provide writ­ten evid­ence or at­tend a hear­ing in re­la­tion to a wasted costs or­der. The court has re­cently held...
Per­son­al in­jury: con­ceal­ing pre­vi­ous med­ic­al his­tory can amount to fun­da­ment­al...
A lit­ig­ant in per­son has had her claim dis­missed after con­ceal­ing a lengthy pre­vi­ous med­ic­al his­tory and was found to have been fun­da­ment­ally dis­hon­est. Back­ground In Smith v Haringey Lon­don Bor­ough Coun­cil...