TCC 15 June 2001. SCL brought a claim against DF under the Supreme Court Act 1981 s51 on the basis that it had been faced with an inflated claim, and sought a costs order against WF alleging that it had funded the action, the expenses and fees for which remained largely unpaid. SCL also claimed that as they were the 'named opponent' for the purposes of an insurance policy under RSC Order 49, incorporated as CPR s49 by Sch 1, for legal FOQ were entitled to payment in respect of 'insured expenses' and which FOQ were in turn obliged to pass on. "Held" the insurance funds were released to SCL on the grounds that: The proceedings were funded on credit by WF, in the sincere but unreasonable belief that recovery would exceed the amount paid into the court by SCL, and not DF; the continuance of the action after the provision of security was imprudent but not improper; there was nothing in the case to make DF's conduct exceptional or to justify an order being made against him under s51; the court had no jurisdiction to make an order under s51(1) and s51(3) against legal representative acting in that capacity; it could not be shown that WF was the driving force behind the litigation not FOQ and DF; there was no effective assignment of the policy proceeds to WF and it would be wrong to consider WF more deserving than SCL. Full copy of the judgement available at http://porch.ccta.gov.uk/courtser/judgements.nsf/Search/A281DF48F618525680256A93005B2A2D?OpenDocument