A UK court has spotlighted a £12 million misappropriation scandal at Gable Insurance AG, once Liechtenstein’s largest insurer, raising urgent questions about executive oversight and governance.
Gable Insurance AG (GIAG), a company that once stood at the top of Liechtenstein’s insurance sector, has become the focus of a high-profile legal battle in London’s High Court of Justice. The case, heard before the Business and Property Courts of England & Wales, centres on allegations that former CEO William Dewsall orchestrated the dishonest misappropriation of approximately £12 million from the company between 2010 and 2018. The allegations have sent ripples through the insurance industry, highlighting the risks of unchecked executive power and the importance of robust internal controls.
The claim, brought by GIAG (now in liquidation), also names former director Michael Hirschfield, Mrs. Judith Dewsall (the CEO’s wife), and Horatio Risk Consulting LLP, a partnership established by the Dewsalls, as defendants. According to court documents, GIAG asserts that Dewsall’s actions were not isolated. Hirschfield, who served as a director from February 2014 to October 2016, is said to have assisted or facilitated the misappropriations, allegedly breaching his own duties as a director.
The court heard that GIAG’s business expanded rapidly during the period in question, with premium income surging from £10 million in 2009 to £91 million in 2015. Dewsall, as CEO, was at the helm, exercising day-to-day control over operations. However, the company’s structure included a number of non-executive directors, both at GIAG and its parent, Gable Holdings Inc. Despite these layers of oversight, the company’s arrangements with Hogarth Underwriting Agency Limited - an entity wholly owned by Dewsall - created persistent conflicts of interest. These conflicts, while addressed in formal agreements, became central to the court’s examination.
Key agreements included a 2010 underwriting and claims handling contract, later revised in 2013 to address the conflicts and cap Hogarth’s profits. Yet, the court found that nearly £12 million was transferred from Hogarth’s trust accounts to its corporate accounts between 2010 and 2013 - an amount that significantly exceeded Hogarth’s commission entitlements. The legitimacy of these payments, and whether they were permitted under the agreements or constituted misappropriations, was a focal point of the proceedings.
GIAG’s claims did not stop at the movement of funds. The insurer argued that some of the misappropriated money was used for improvements to Weald Hall, a family home beneficially owned by Mrs. Dewsall, and for partial repayment of a mortgage on the property. The property has since been sold, with the net proceeds of approximately £850,000 held by the court pending the outcome of the case. Horatio Risk Consulting LLP, the partnership established by the Dewsalls around the time of GIAG’s liquidation, was said to have received approximately £280,000 of the disputed funds. Notably, no personal claims were brought against Mrs. Dewsall; her involvement was limited to proprietary claims related to Weald Hall.
The collapse of GIAG in November 2016 followed a series of regulatory interventions by the Liechtenstein Financial Market Authority (FMA), which issued orders prohibiting payments to associated companies and eventually appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers as administrator. The company’s insolvency was attributed in part to its rapid expansion and failure to meet solvency requirements. Criminal proceedings in Liechtenstein against both Dewsall and Hirschfield remain unresolved.
Throughout the proceedings, the High Court scrutinized whether Dewsall and Hirschfield breached their duties as directors under Liechtenstein law and whether the misappropriated funds could be traced into Weald Hall. The court also examined the legitimacy of payments between GIAG, Hogarth, and related entities, as well as the availability of proprietary remedies to GIAG. No specific insurance policy clauses were at issue in the judgment; the dispute focused squarely on governance, director conduct, and the tracing of company assets.
The case, with its high stakes and detailed examination of executive conduct, serves as a cautionary tale for insurance professionals and company directors. It underscores the necessity of strong governance, transparent financial management, and vigilant oversight at all levels of the insurance business.
