In Van Minh v Da Guang Tankers (Private) Ltd (In Liquidation) [2026] EWHC 793 (Admiralty)('Van Minh'), Admiralty Registrar Davison (sitting in the High Court, King's Bench Division, Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, Admiralty Court) said, at paragraph 13, under the heading 'The Law'[1]:

(1) Solicitors who issue proceedings thereby warrant that they have authority to do so: Yonge v Toynbee [1910] 1 KB 215.

(2) As a matter of public policy, it is an abuse of the process of the court for solicitors to issue proceedings in the name of a person who has not given them authority to do so. If they do not in fact have such authority, they are in breach of warranty and may be liable for the costs of such proceedings: Jalla v Shell [2024] EWHC 578 (TCC) at [73]. Skylight Maritime SA v Ascot Underwriting Ltd & Ors, Wurttembergische-Und Badische Versicherung AG, Houlder Insurance Services (Marine) Limited [2005] EWHC 15 (Comm) at [6] – [8].

(3) The liability for acting in breach of warranty is strict. It is not necessary to prove that the solicitor knew or should have known of the want of authority: Zoya Ltd v Ahmed [2016] 4 WLR 174 at [29].

...

(5) The usual damages awarded comprise the sum of costs thrown away by the promisee on the proceedings - Skylight Maritime SA v Ascot Underwriting Ltd & Ors, Wurttembergische-Und Badische Versicherung AG, Houlder Insurance Services (Marine) Limited [2005] EWHC 15 (Comm) at [16]. [Here I interpose that this is a departure from the normal measure of damages, which would be to put the claimant into the position they would have been in if the warranty had been true; see generally McGregor on Damages, 22 nd Ed at 37-021.]'

A few additional observations can be made in relation to Van Minh:

(a) as may have been apparent from the inclusion of (4) above, the application before the Registrar, was an application for a wasted costs order, against a firm of solicitors ('solicitors'), for issuing a claim without authority. The allegation being that the solicitors had issued a claim based on an alleged collision between two vessels, without '...authority of either the claimant or the claimant’s insurers to commence and maintain it.' (paragraph 1). That the solicitors '...had expressly warranted that they were instructed by the claimant’s hull and machinery underwriters, ... (“PVI”), when (as they have admitted) they were not and (2) that they did not have instructions or authority from the claimant either.'

(b) the applicants were the defendants in the underlying action. 

(c) as indicated, the breach of warranty of authority was admitted by the solicitors. The solicitors though, disputed (wrongly, as the Registrar later held (paragraph 17)) that this had caused no loss to the wasted costs order applicant/defendants;

(d) in respect to the wasted costs regime and the breach of warranty of authority jurisdiction, the Registrar added two further points:

'(4) If a solicitor has failed to take proper steps to check the source of his instructions this is likely to be held to be improper and unreasonable within the meaning of PD46 even if he acted in good faith throughout: Rushbrooke UK Ltd v 4 Designs Concept Ltd [2022] EWHC 1687 (Ch) and Trehan v Liverpool Victoria [2017] 10 WLUK 21.

...

(6) The wasted costs jurisdiction and the breach of warranty of authority jurisdiction are separate jurisdictions. However, they will almost always lead to the same result – see: Rushbrooke UK Ltd v 4 Designs Concept Ltd [2022] EWHC 1687 (Ch) at [24].'

Collatory Case Series

The Collatory Case Series, is an series of bulletins, designed to report that one case, which collates the essential principles/propositions of law, for a particular doctrine/area of law. It is not designed as a deep and comprehensive review of an area of law, but to provide that quick 'go to' case.

SIMON HILL © 2026*

BARRISTER 

33 BEDFORD ROW

NOTICE: This article is provided free of charge for information purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information and commentary set out in the article, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed or accepted by any member of Chambers or by Chambers as a whole, or the Copyright holder. No attempt has been made to provide an exhaustive review/account of the law in this area. *Copyright is owned by Barrister Search Limited.