All aspects of personal injury for Claimants and Defendants
- Clinical Negligence
- Employer’s liability
- Industrial Disease
- Fatal accident claims
- Motor Insurance Bureau claims
- RTA litigation including insurance fraud, credit hire, and low velocity impact claims
- Coroner’s inquests
- Professional Negligence
- Product Liability
- Actions against the police (malicious prosecution, false imprisonment etc)
- Judicial Review
Prosecution and Defence
- Health and Safety (recommended in Chambers UK as a notable practitioner)
- Trading and Consumer Law
- Food Safety
Attorney General’s Panel of Specialist Regulatory Advocates [Panel A]
Areas of Practice
Northern/North Eastern (Bar), Health and Safety
Maintains a broad criminal and regulatory practice, which includes expertise in a wide range of health and safety matters. He is frequently instructed by the HSE in enforcement proceedings. He also acts on behalf of NHS trusts in a wide range of medical matters.
(Chambers and Partners 2018)
“Has specialist expertise in a wide range of health and safety matters. He is frequently instructed by the HSE in enforcement proceedings. ” (Chambers and Partner 2017)
“Vast experience in all forms of health and safety, regulatory and corporate manslaughter work. Work involves major, complex and high profile health and safety, manslaughter and other regulatory prosecutions. Also acts on all forms of personal injury work and clinical negligence litigation – including claims of utmost severity and fatal accidents.” (Chambers and Partners 2014).
“”Experienced in industrial disease, fatal accidents claims and employers’ liability, among other areas” (Legal 500 2016) Ranked: Tier 1
“His Practice covers civil insurance fraud, employers` liability and industrial diseases, among other areas” (Legal 500 2015) Ranked: tier 1
- R (on the application of HALPIN) v NORTHWICH MAGISTRATES COURT (2011): A magistrates’ court had erred in refusing an application to adjourn a trial to allow the defendant time to consider lately disclosed material concerning the complainant’s previous caution for battery. That was relevant since the defendant, who had been charged with assault, had pleaded self-defence and, without knowing the circumstances of the caution, it could not be said that the trial was necessarily fair and would have reached the same result.
 EWHC 1349 (Admin)
DC (Langstaff J, Charles J) 11/3/2011
- MULLOCK v PRICE (T/A THE ELMS HOTEL RESTAURANT) (2009): A judge had taken into account irrelevant factors when setting aside a default judgment against a defendant under CPR r.13.3, as the defendant’s application to set aside, which had been made two years after the default judgment had been entered, could not be considered to be a prompt application.
 EWCA Civ 1222
CA (Civ Div) (Ward LJ, Sedley LJ, Smith LJ) 15/10/2009
- MOHAMMED SAEED v ALAN HOWARD ELLIS (2009): The standard disclosure provisions of the CPR r.31.6 and the specific disclosure provisions of r.31.12 were not mutually exclusive. Therefore, if a defendant or opponent had reason to believe that specific documents were available but had not been disclosed, that could be a proper subject of request for specific disclosure whether or not they should have been disclosed on the initiative of the opposing litigant.
CIVIL PROCEDURE – CIVIL EVIDENCE – NEGLIGENCE
QBD (Manchester) (Nicol J) 4/6/2009
- DONNA EGAN v CENTRAL MANCHESTER & MANCHESTER CHILDREN’S UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS NHS TRUST (2008): An NHS trust was in breach of its duty under the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 reg.4(1)(b)(ii) for failing to take steps that were reasonably practicable to reduce the risk of an injury, which was sustained by a nurse whilst transferring a patient into a bath using a mobile hoist.
HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK – NEGLIGENCE – PERSONAL INJURY
 EWCA Civ 1424 CA (Civ Div) (Sedley LJ, Keene LJ, Smith LJ) 15/12/2008
- WATTAN SINGH v AQUA DESCALING LTD (2008): The owner of a taxi business was not entitled to recover vehicle hire costs that he had incurred to replace his private hire minibus which had been damaged in a road traffic accident because, in the circumstances, he had the choice of not hiring a vehicle at all and claiming for loss of profit, or purchasing a replacement after a reasonable period of time.
CC (Walsall) (Judge Oliver-Jones QC) 18/2/2008
- LOUISE JESTINA PHILLIPS (AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF NEVILLE BRITTON PHILLIPS, DECEASED) v (1) MOHAMED RAFIQ (2) MOTOR INSURERS’ BUREAU (2007): Clause 6.1(e) of the Uninsured Drivers’ Agreement 1999 provided an exception to the obligation of the Motor Insurer’s Bureau to satisfy compensation claims where “the claimant” voluntarily allowed himself to be carried in an uninsured vehicle. Accordingly, the MIB was obliged to satisfy any judgment for damages obtained by the dependant of a deceased in a fatal accident claim against an uninsured driver, notwithstanding that the deceased knew that the driver was uninsured.
INSURANCE – ROAD TRAFFIC
 EWCA Civ 74
CA (Civ Div) (Ward LJ, Latham LJ, Charles J) 14/2/2007
- LOUISE JESTINA PHILLIPS (AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF NEVILLE BRITTON PHILLIPS, DECEASED) V (1) MOHAMMED RAFIQ (2) MOTOR INSURERS’ BUREAU (2006): The wife of a car passenger killed in a road traffic accident, allegedly as a result of an uninsured driver’s negligence, was entitled to a declaration that the Motor Insurers’ Bureau was liable to satisfy any judgment obtained by the wife against the driver, notwithstanding the passenger’s knowledge that the driver was uninsured, since the wife had satisfied the requirements of the Uninsured Drivers Agreement 1999 and the exception contained in clause 6.1(e)(ii) of the Agreement did not apply.
ROAD TRAFFIC Ð INSURANCE  EWHC 1461 (QB) QBD
- R V P&O FERRIES (IRISH SEA) LTD (2004): Sentences for breaches of health and safety at work legislation had to be significant to financially penalise large companies. Fines imposed on a company that had been found to have failed in its duties in respect of the death of an employee had been manifestly excessive where in the circumstances there had been no other aggravating features and numerous points in mitigation.
SENTENCING – HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK
 EWCA Crim 3236
CA (Crim Div) (Laws LJ, Davis J, Judge John Griffith Williams QC) 24/11/2004
- ROBERT CROSBIE v (1) STEPHEN MUNROE (2) MOTOR INSURERS BUREAU (2003): Where a claim had been settled without proceedings being issued, but costs only proceedings had been issued to recover the claimant’s costs, the claimant’s offer to settle the costs of proceedings that had related to the assessment under CPR 47.19(1)(a) only covered the costs of settling the substantive claim.
CIVIL PROCEDURE – COSTS – CPR – TRANSPORT
 EWCA Civ 350
CA (Civ Div) (Schiemann LJ, Brooke LJ, Jonathan Parker LJ) 14/3/2003
References: LTL 14/3/2003 : (2003) 2 All ER 856 : (2003) RTR 33 : Times, March 25,
- Q v (1) J (2) M (3) H (2003): Disallowing a substantial bill of costs in full was too drastic a penalty for delay on the part of the claimant when the cause of their delay was neglect rather than intention and the defendants had failed to cooperate when they could easily have done.
FAMILY LAW – COSTS
 EWHC 251 (Fam)
Fam Div (Sumner J, District Judge Fairclough, District Judge Flanagan) 3/3/2003
SUTCLIFFE v COUNTESS OF CHESTER HOSPITAL NHS TRUST (2002): Erbs palsy. Clinical negligence. A report of this case is available at (2002) Lloyd’s Rep Med 449. HEALTH
QBD (Thomas J) 24/4/2002
References: (2002) Lloyd’s Rep Med 449
Document No.: Case Law – AC0302005
- BYRNE v SOUTH SEFTON HEALTH AUTHORITY (2001): Where the claimant’s previous solicitors had not commenced proceedings against the defendant, the costs incurred by the defendant were not caused by that firm’s actions but rather by the client’s subsequent decision to commence proceedings despite the expired limitation period. Accordingly, the wasted costs order against the firm was erroneous and was quashed.
CIVIL PROCEDURE – COSTS – LEGAL PROFESSION
 EWCA Civ 1904
CA (Civ Div) (Peter Gibson LJ, Chadwick LJ, Longmore LJ) 22/11/2001
- MARGARET MAUNTON (Plaintiff) v DELPHSIDE LTD (Defendant) (1998): Judge’s conclusions that employer had been negligent in failing to advise plaintiff of need to use a footstool when reaching boxes from a high shelf was against the weight of the evidence given the plaintiff’s evidence that she had used a stool in the past and that a stool was probably available.
NEGLIGENCE – PERSONAL INJURY
CA (Thorpe LJ, Brooke LJ) 2/12/98
- MICHAEL CAMBRIDGE V (1) PETER CALLAGHAN (2) THE MOTOR INSURER’S BUREAU (1997): Whether the requirement that notice of proceedings given to the MIB be accompanied by the document initiating the proceedings was mandatory, and whether it should be construed as requiring an officially stamped writ.
TRANSPORT – CIVIL PROCEDURE
CA (Civ Div) (Kennedy LJ, Millett LJ, Mance J) 11/3/97
IN RE SC (MENTAL PATIENT : HABEAS CORPUS) (1995): Application for habeas corpus by mental patient and allegation of irregularity in the application for confinement under s.3 Mental Health Act 1983.
HEALTH – CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CA (Civ Div) (Sir Thomas Bingham MR, Neill LJ, Hirst LJ) 22/11/95
References: (1996) QB 599 : (1996) 2 WLR 146 : (1996) 1 All ER 532 : (1996) 1 FLR 548 : (1996) 29 BMLR 138 : Times, December 4, 1995
Document No.: Case Law – AC0003414