Lawyers acting for some of Britain’s largest pension funds yesterday sought to freeze the £55 million of bonuses and pension payments due to the former chief executive of BP.

The Times has learnt that the lawyers say the payments should be frozen after Lord Browne of Madingley admitted that he lied to the High Court about a gay relationship.

Lord Browne resigned on Tuesday after the House of Lords rejected his attempt to keep secret his relationship with a 27-year-old student. He had admitted that he initially lied to the High Court about how they met. Mr Justice Eady, in his judgment, said that following Lord Browne’s lie: “I should certainly be careful in taking anything the Claimant says at face value or in accepting too readily from him that any particular story is inherently unlikely.” The admission is being used by lawyers in the US who are attempting to reduce the pay and bonuses payments for the BP board. The case could cause a delay of up to two years before Lord Browne can lay his hands on any bonus or pension plan.

Bill Lerach, who is bringing a class action against BP, last week called for an injunction on all of Lords Browne’s pay.

He is acting for pension funds including the London Pension Funds Authority, whose members control £70 billion of pension fund assets for 39 local authorities, The pension funds claim the $140 million in pay and other compensation for the BP board was “excessive and undeserved.”

After it was revealed that the former BP executive lied on oath to a British court, Mr Lerach filed new evidence with the Alaskan district court to allege Lord Browne and the rest of the BP board could not be trusted. The filing says: “The events surrounding Browne’s resignation further demonstrate the BP board’s unwillingness to comply with the fiduciary duties to protect BP and its assets.”

Mr Lerach, who is dubbed the “king of pain” for getting hefty payouts from legal class actions, said last week that lawyers for BP and Lord Browne argued that there should be no freeze on his pay. Mr Lerach told The Times that BP’s argument was “please do not issue an injunction against the payment of monies to Lord Browne as it will harm his reputation if you issue such an injunction.”

Mr Lerach added: “It validates the core theory of the case that the board of directors was protecting Lord Browne and what is really bothersome is they went to court in Alaska arguing about his reputation.

“Well he doesn’t have reputation any more. The BP board knew what was happening at the time don’t kid yourself. They were playing fast and loose with the American court just like apparently Lord Browne was playing fast and loose with the British court.”

A US judge will rule in about three weeks whether to grant that request to freeze Mr Browne’s pay until the whole case has been resolved which could be up to two years away.

The new filing also contains a letter addressed to the board of BP from a US congressional committee on concerns over BP’s safety record in Alaska. The House Committee on Commerce was supposed to convene today but is thought to have been postponed.

BP disputed that the payments to the board were excessive and said that the company planned to defend the action and oppose the injunction sought by Mr Lerach.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers