Dominic Bright

Commercial

Dominic’s commercial practice includes consumer credit, credit hire, debt recovery and leasing.

He has defended FTSE 100 companies, including a multinational bank and UK’s largest general insurer.

Dominic has a particular interest in advising on commercial use of novel technologies, including artificial intelligence, autonomous drones and synthetic biology.

He is a member of the Commercial Bar Association.

• S v K & Anor – successfully resisted an application to set aside and awarded costs as claimed of about £1,300 (December 2023).
• Advice in conference in respect of building works totalling about £70,000 (December 2023).
• W v V – successfully applied for summary judgment against a firm of solicitors, about £1,000 interest and about £3,500 costs (December 2023).
• A v G & Three Ors – successfully resisted applications to set aside judgment, so that they were dismissed as totally without merit and costs of about £2,700 were awarded (October 2023).
• A v H – drafted pleadings to enforce an adjudication award in favour of a home buyer against a home builder for about £26,500 and over £1,000 interest (August 2023).
• L v G – successfully cross-examined and made submissions, so that £31,000, about £3,000 interest and over £10,500 costs were awarded (July 2023).
• P v P – successfully made submissions, so that about £6,500 costs were awarded to the defendant after the claim was dismissed (June 2023).
• B v G – successfully made submissions, so that the application to set aside an order striking out a claim for £100,000 was dismissed and costs as claimed were awarded (June 2023).
• C & Anor v A – successfully resisted an application to set aside an order adding a second claimant (May 2023).
• B v B – successfully made submissions, so that the claimant was refused permission to rely on his witness statement (April 2023).
• P v P – despite all of defendant’s applications on the day of trial being refused – first, to rely on an amended defence and a witness statement; secondly, to give evidence remotely from the United Arab Emirates; and, thirdly, to adjourn – successfully cross-examined both directors of the claimant company and made submissions, so that the claim was dismissed (March 2023).
• C v S – successfully applied for a final debt order and costs as claimed (January 2023).
• J v B – successfully cross-examined and made submissions, so that the claim for the balance of an invoice was allowed and the counterclaim for harassment, rent and the cost of a locksmith was dismissed (December 2022).
• M v J – successfully resisted applications to adjourn for further directions, strike out and / or summary judgment (March 2022).
• Drafted Tomlin order on behalf of a property developer, who sold a property well in excess of £1 million, before the purchaser issued a claim for breach of contract, including allegations that construction work caused the death of 12 beech and sycamore trees (August 2021).
• B v C – successfully submitted that default judgment should be set aside and that there should be no order as to costs. Email from professional client, dated 8 June 2021: ‘Thanks Dominic!’
• P v R – successfully applied for summary judgment for about £15,500, about £2,000 interest and £3,500 costs (March 2021).
• Devilling (opinion) in a potential claim of more than one-third of a million pounds, where the issues included illegality, force majeure and frustration during the COVID-19 pandemic (December 2020).
• R & Anor v E – claim form and particulars of claim following a wedding that did not take place due to restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic, claiming repayment of sums paid pursuant to contract because consideration had wholly failed, alternatively damages, further or alternatively the sums paid pursuant to the contract before the contract was discharged because performance was frustrated, further or alternatively payment of the sums paid under the contract as money had and received (September 2020).
• P & Anor v P – claim form and particulars of claim following a wedding that did not take place due to the COVID-19 lockdown, claiming repayment of sums paid pursuant to the contract because consideration had wholly failed, alternatively payment of the sums paid under the contract as money had an received (August 2020).
• Advice in conference following a wedding that did not take place due to the COVID-19 lockdown following the Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020/350, where the issues included force majeure, frustration, supervening illegality and consumer protection under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, and the Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (July 2020).
• K v M – devilling for a Silk, namely researching and drafting the skeleton argument and bundle of authorities in applications before the High Court for general civil restraint orders and non-party costs orders to be awarded on the indemnity basis (April 2020).
• Advice, letters before claim and particulars of claim for breach of contract or alternatively money had and received in the sum of £100,000 plus interest (February 2020).
• U v E – successfully made an oral application on the day of trial for summary judgment in the sum of about £10,000 (January 2020).
• H v O-B – successfully applied for relief from sanctions and that the claim be reinstated, despite the finding that there was a serious and significant breach of a court order, for which there was no good reason and that the application was not made promptly (November 2019).
• Advice on prospects of defending a claim in the region of £40,000 and counterclaiming in the region of £70,000, upon alleged breach of vacant possession by the seller of a six-bedroom property (June 2019).
• A v S & Two Ors – devilling for a Silk, drafting a skeleton argument for use in proceedings in the Chancery Division of the High Court (March 2019).

Consumer credit

• T v B – represented a bank in a claim under the Consumer Credit Act procedure (February 2023).
• J v B – successfully represented a bank in a claim under the Consumer Credit Act procedure, so that the claim was struck out and over £3,500 in costs was awarded to the defendant (August 2022).
• B v F – successfully made submissions on behalf of a bank in a claim under the Consumer Credit Act procedure, so that, unless the claimant filed an application to perfect his statement of case within 14 days his claim would be struck out, and, in any event, the claimant pay the defendant’s costs of the hearing (June 2022).
• H v B – represented a bank in a claim made under the Consumer Credit Act procedure (January 2022).
• T v B – represented a bank in a claim made under the Consumer Credit Act procedure (September 2021).
• L v V – skeleton argument on behalf of a bank in a claim made under the Consumer Credit Act procedure (September 2021).
• C v B – successfully represented a bank in a claim for ‘up to £25,000’ made under the Consumer Credit Act procedure, so that it was dismissed. After cross-examination, the judge found that: “This statement is hopeless. The witness evidence is lamentable. … I cannot place any reliance on it” (August 2021).
• P v B – represented a bank in a claim made under the Consumer Credit Act procedure (July 2021).
• M v B – represented a bank in a claim made under the Consumer Credit Act procedure (July 2021).
• B v B – represented a bank in a claim made under the Consumer Credit Act procedure (July 2021).
• B v B – represented a bank in a claim made under the Consumer Credit Act procedure (June 2021).
• P v B – represented a bank in a claim made under the Consumer Credit Act procedure (June 2021).
• H v B – represented a bank in a claim made under the Consumer Credit Act procedure (June 2021).

Credit hire

• M v A – successfully cross-examined, so that the claimant was found to be pecunious and only about 65 percent of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (December 2023).
• G v F – successfully cross-examined and made submissions, so that only about 15 percent of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (December 2023).
• Written advice on the strength of the loss of profit case, what is needed to successfully pursue it, duration arguments, other strategies for success, Part 18 and Part 35 questions in a dispute over about £100,000 involving a Lamborghini Gallardo (November 2023).
• R v N – successfully cross-examined and made submissions, so that only about one-tenth of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (November 2023).
• Advice in conference in respect of recovery and storage charges in the context of a credit hire claim (September 2023).
• M v H – successfully resisted an application for relief from sanctions in respect of impecuniosity, cross-examined and made submissions, so that about one-quarter of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded and only about 55 percent of the costs that were claimed were awarded (November 2023).
• P v B – successfully cross-examined and made submissions, so that the claim for over £3,000 in credit hire charges was dismissed on the basis of enforceability (August 2023). 
• R v A – successfully made submissions, so that about 55 percent of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (August 2021).
• N v C – successfully resisted an application to adjourn, and made submissions, so that the claim for credit hire was dismissed on the basis that need had not been proven and no order as to costs was made (August 2023).
• A v O – successfully made submissions, so that about half of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (July 2023).
• H v A – successfully negotiated settlement, so that about 40 percent of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (July 2023).
• G v A – successfully cross-examined and made submissions, so that less than one-third of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (July 2023).
• S v A – successfully cross-examined and made submissions, so that the claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs of about £2,500 on the basis that the former behaved unreasonably (July 2023).
• F v P – advice and drafted defence to a claim for over £42,000 on the basis that the car was a fleet vehicle, so need to hire outside that fleet needed to be proved, along with period, rate and extras (July 2023).
• H v A – successfully cross-examined and made submissions, so that a successful intervention was found and about half of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (June 2023).  
• L v H – successfully cross-examined and made submissions, so that the claimant was found to be pecunious, less than 20 percent of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded, and the claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs as claimed on the basis that the former had behaved unreasonably (June 2023).
• S v T – successfully cross-examined the head of the insurance team, and a manager in the commercial team, of a multi-billion pound company, so that the credit hire claim for over £26,000 was dismissed because need to hire from outside the fleet had not been proven (June 2023).
• S v W – successfully made submissions, so that about ten percent of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (June 2023).
• M v P – successfully made submissions, so that about 45 percent of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded and the additional driver was not awarded (May 2023).

• S v H – successfully made submissions, so that relief from sanctions to rely on a witness statement after the deadline was refused essentially because the application for relief was not prompt, so that the claim for over £7,000 was dismissed (April 2023).

• A v T – successfully made submissions, so that the claim was struck out and the claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs as claimed on the basis that the claimant behaved unreasonably (April 2023).
• S v E – successfully cross-examined and made submissions, so that less than one percent of the amount that was claimed was awarded, the claimant was ordered to repay any interim payments and the defendant’s costs of £2,500 on the basis that the claimant behaved unreasonably (April 2023).
• V v G – successfully cross-examined and made submissions, so that the claim for credit hire was dismissed and the claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs of £2,000 on the basis that the claimant behaved unreasonably (April 2023).
• P v A – successfully made submissions, so that the claim was transferred to Part 7, allocated to the small claims track, standard directions were made and successfully resisted a finding of unreasonable behaviour (March 2023).
• C v A – successfully made submissions, so that less than 45 percent of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (March 2023).
• M v U – successfully made submissions, so that less than 45 percent of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (March 2023).
• S v A – successfully made an oral application to allow dash cam footage into evidence that had not been filed and served, resisted the claimant’s efforts to rely on evidence of impecuniosity despite her failure to plead it and submitted that no legal representative’s costs should be awarded (March 2023).
• I v A – successfully made submissions, so that the claim was struck out and the claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs as claimed on the basis that the claimant behaved unreasonably (February 2023).
• L v C – successfully applied to dismiss the claim and the claimant to pay the defendant’s costs of about £800 on the basis that the claimant behaved unreasonably (February 2023).
• P v K – successfully made submissions, so that period was reduced, less than one-sixth of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded and the hearing fee was not awarded to the claimant (February 2023).
• H v I – successfully applied to set aside default judgment on the basis that the court did not have jurisdiction to enter judgment because, although the defence was filed out of time, it was filed before judgment was entered (February 2023).
• Z & Anor v Z – successfully applied for a third party costs order, so that the third party was ordered to pay costs of the trial of over £5,300 and costs of the application of about £8,800 (February 2023).
• C v B – successfully made submissions, so that period was reduced, the intervention rate was applied and about one-ninth of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (February 2023).
• A v A – successfully defeated a test application to strike out a “stock” defence, in which the applicant was represented by counsel Called to the Bar in 1992 (February 2023).
• M v M – successfully made submissions on costs, so that, although the claim was allowed, the hearing fee was not awarded (January 2023).
• H v P – successfully made submissions, so that about two-thirds of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (December 2022).
• D v U – successfully made submissions, so that less than one-eighth of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (December 2022).
• N v P – successfully made submissions, so that less than one-fifth of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded and the claim in respect of the insurers’ outlay was dismissed (November 2022).
• B v B – successfully made submissions, so that an intervention letter was found to have been served, Copley-compliant and about one-sixth of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded, the claimant was not awarded the hearing fee or witness expenses and found to have behaved unreasonably, so that she was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs (November 2022).
• K v B – successfully resisted the claimant’s application for relief from sanctions so that he was debarred from relying on impecuniosity and made submissions, so that about one-third of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded and more than £350 of costs that were claimed were not awarded (November 2022).
• S v A – successfully made submissions, so that an intervention letter was found to have been served, Copley-compliant and less than one-seventh of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (November 2022).
• M v A – successfully made submissions, so that the period of hire was reduced, an intervention letter was found to have been served, Copley-compliant, about one-sixth of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded and the hearing fee was not awarded (October 2022).
• H v W – successfully submitted that the claimant should pay the defendant’s costs due to her unreasonable behaviour (October 2022).
• S v J – successfully submitted that the claimant should pay the defendant’s costs due to his unreasonable behaviour (October 2022).
• V v G – successfully submitted that the judgment should be set aside and costs as claimed should be awarded to the defendant due to the claimant’s unreasonable behaviour (August 2022).
• H v C – successfully negotiated an adjournment on the basis that the claimant paid the defendant’s costs and expenses (August 2022).
• G v N – successfully negotiated settlement on the best realistic terms for the defendant (August 2022).
• Conjoined appeals: B v A and G v A – successfully represented the respondents, so that, although the appeals were allowed, judgment was entered for less than £800 in the former and less than £1,300 in the latter, and, despite accepting that (different) trial counsel had led the judge into error, resisted a finding of unreasonable conduct (July 2022).
• H v F – appellant’s notice and grounds of appeal alleging that the judge was wrong to hold that the burden of proving need to hire for social and domestic use was satisfied on the evidence of a bare assertion.  Email from professional client, dated 15 July 2022: ‘We have reviewed these documents this morning and we are very happy with them’.
• P v A – successfully made submissions, so that an intervention letter was found to be served, Copley-compliant, about one-third of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded and the claimant was not awarded all of the costs that she claimed (July 2022).
• S v O – successfully made submissions, so that an intervention letter was found to be served, Copley-compliant and about one-six of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (July 2022).
• H v F – successfully made submissions, so that about 15 percent of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded with no order as to costs (July 2022).
• B v D – successfully resisted the claimant’s application for relief from sanctions and made submissions, so that about one-third of the period and about one-sixth of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (June 2022).
• B v C – successfully made submissions, so that an intervention letter was found to be served, Copley-compliant and about one-fifth of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (May 2022).
• L v I – successfully made submissions, so that the claimant’s application was dismissed for an unless order that, unless a CPR-compliant list of documents was served, the defendant would be debarred from relying on any documents (in a claim for pre-accident value, storage and recovery and about £63,000 in credit hire charges) and £1,500 costs was awarded to the defendant (March 2022).
• B & Anor v B – successfully represented the defendant by settling on the day for about £1,200 less than what could reasonably be expected if the case was decided after a hearing (March 2022).
• B v B – successfully made submissions, so that the intervention letter was found to be served, Copley-compliant, and less than one-third of the amount that was claimed for credit hire, nothing for the second head of loss and costs that were proportionate to the judgment sum were awarded (as opposed to the costs that were claimed) (March 2022).
• P v S – successfully made submissions, so that less than one-fifth of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (March 2022).
• C v A – successfully made submissions, so that less than two-fifths of the amount that was claimed for credit hire and only half of the legal costs that were claimed were awarded (March 2022).
• S v M – successfully made submissions, so that the court declined to reallocate the claim, despite it being allocated to a track other than the “normal” track (February 2022).
• H v C – successfully made submissions, so that an unless order was made, that unless the claimant’s evidence was served within ten days the claim would be struck out, and the defendant’s costs were awarded (February 2022).
• D v P – successfully made submissions, so that less than one-third of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (February 2022).
• F v A – successfully made submissions, so that although liability and quantum were admitted, no order was made as to costs (January 2022).
• C v J – successfully made submissions, so that although the matter was adjourned, the defendant’s costs were paid by the claimant (12 January 2022).
• G v H – successfully made submissions, so that the intervention letter was found to be Copley-compliant, less than one-quarter of the sum that was claimed for credit hire was awarded and there was no order as to costs (January 2022).
• D v G – successfully resisted the claimant’s application for relief from sanctions, and made submissions so that less than two-fifths of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (January 2022).
• D v A – successfully made submissions, so that an intervention letter was found to be Copley-compliant and less than one-quarter of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (January 2022).
• B v A – successfully resisted the claimant’s application to adjourn, so as to get more evidence in response the defendant’s submission that the claimant’s case was insufficiently evidenced, and submitted that the claim for about £5,500 in respect of credit hire charges be dismissed (December 2021).
• B v F – successfully made submissions, so that: about one-fifth of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded; and no order as to the claimant’s costs was made (December 2021).
• Y v D – successfully made submissions, so that: less than half of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded; the issue fee was reduced by more than 30 percent; and pre-allocation costs that the defendant had agreed to pay in principle were in fact reduced to about half of the sum that was claimed (December 2021).
• S v F – instructed in a credit hire test case by a Team Manager in an international firm on behalf of a well-known, mainstream insurer (November 2021).
• H v D – successfully made submissions, so that less than one-quarter of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (November 2021).
• B v M – successfully made submissions, so that about 40 percent of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (November 2021).
• H v B – successfully: resisted the claimant’s application for permission to amend his pleadings; submitted that the weekly pro rata rate should be awarded in respect of credit hire, so that less than half of the amount that was claimed was awarded; resisted the claimant’s application for about £4,100 costs on the basis that the defendant had behaved unreasonably (‘We will not consider offers for hire or repair. … We will not di[s]cuss this further with you.’); and cross-examined so that only half of the sum that was claimed for loss of earnings was awarded (November 2021).
• R v M ­– successfully made submissions, so that less than one-fifth of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded and the claimant’s costs were reduced by more than one-fifth (November 2021).
• A v R – successfully made submissions, so that: the weekly pro rata rate and less than one-quarter of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded; and the amount that was claimed for repairs was reduced by more than one-fifth (November 2021).
• G v W – successfully made submissions, so that about one-fifth of the sum that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (November 2021).
• C v B – successfully made submissions so that about one-third of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (October 2021).
• S v D – successfully made submissions, so that the claim for credit hire was reduced by about 70 percent and another head of loss was dismissed (October 2021).
• G v A – successfully made submissions, so that less than one-fifth of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded, two heads of loss were dismissed and costs were reduced by about 40 percent (October 2021).
• E v H – successfully made submissions, so that the low hurdle of proving need to hire was found not to be proven and the claim for credit hire was dismissed (October 2021).
• M v H – successfully made submissions, so that: the claimant was debarred from asserting impecuniosity; the claim for an additional driver was dismissed; and less than 40 percent of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (September 2021).
• H v D – successfully made submissions, so that: ‘I also used my vehicle and the hire vehicle for social and domestic purposes; such as taking my child to school on the days of the week that my wife uses the car to go to work’ was found to be a bare assertion; no exception in Hussain (profit-earning chattels) applied; the claim for credit hire was dismissed; and the costs that were awarded were proportionate to the judgment sum (as opposed to the amount claimed) (September 2021).
• B v S – successfully made submissions, so that: the claimant’s application for relief from sanctions was dismissed; the claim was struck out as an abuse of process; and the claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs on the basis that she behaved unreasonably (September 2021).
• I v B – successfully made submissions, so that: the period of hire was reduced by two-thirds; less than one-quarter of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded; and repairs were reduced by about one-third (September 2021).
• B v B – successfully made submissions during a preliminary hearing, so that the claimant was debarred from asserting impecuniosity and one of the two heads of loss was dismissed (September 2021).
• D v W – successfully made submissions, so that the claim for credit hire was reduced by about 60 percent (September 2021).
• R v W – successfully made submissions, so that the claimant was debarred from asserting impecuniosity and the claim for credit hire was reduced by about one-third (August 2021).
• L v A – successfully made submissions, so that: the claim for recovery was dismissed; an additional driver was not allowed; and less than one-fifth of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (August 2021).
• R v A – successfully made submissions, so that: the claimant was debarred from asserting impecuniosity; ‘I used my own vehicle for private hire and for personal use’ was found to be a bare assertion, so that no exception in Hussain (profit-earning chattels) applied; the claim for over £6,000 in credit hire charges was dismissed; and the claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs on the basis that he behaved unreasonably (August 2021).
• L v A – successfully made submissions during a preliminary hearing, so that the claimant was debarred from asserting impecuniosity and one of the two heads of loss was dismissed (August 2021).
• P v S-C – successfully made submissions, so that about one-third of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (August 2021).
• L v R – successfully cross-examined, so that a head of loss was dismissed (August 2021).
• S v B – successfully made submissions, so that: the claimant’s application for relief from sanctions was dismissed; the claimant was found to have been pecunious; period was reduced by about 45 percent; and the pro rata weekly rate was awarded (July 2021).
• J v A – successfully made submissions, so that: the claim for credit hire was dismissed; and about four-fifths of the sum claimed for repairs, about half of the sum claimed for storage and about 40 percent of the costs claimed were awarded (July 2021).
• G v E – successfully made submissions, so that less than one-third of the sum that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (July 2021).
• M v T – successfully made submissions, so that an intervention letter was found to have been served, Copley-compliant and that about one-quarter of the sum that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (July 2021).
• F v G – successfully settled on the defendant’s best possible case (July 2021).
• B v W – successfully made submissions, so that about 40 percent less than the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded July 2021).
• N v N – successfully made submissions, so that less than one-quarter of the sum that was claimed for credit hire was awarded, on the basis that an intervention letter was served and Copley-compliant, the claimant had behaved unreasonably and the defendant was ordered to pay less than one-tenth of the costs that were claimed (July 2021).
• C v S – successfully made submissions, so that less than one-third of the sum that was claimed for credit hire and less than half of the costs claimed was awarded (July 2021).
• D v A – successfully made submissions, so that less than half of the sum that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (June 2021).
• C v A – successfully made submissions, so that a finding was made that an intervention letter was served,  Copley-compliant and less than 23 times the sum that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (June 2021).
• M v S – successfully submitted that the claim for credit hire was not proved and the claimant had behaved unreasonably, so that costs of more than £750 were awarded to the defendant (June 2021).
• N v G – successfully cross-examined on impecuniosity, so that the claimant admitted that statements for two bank accounts had not been provided, she was found to be pecunious; and successfully made submissions, so that less than one-third of the sum that was claimed for credit hire and less than half of the costs that were claimed was awarded (June 2021).
• M v A – successfully cross-examined on impecuniosity, so that the claimant admitted that statements for two bank accounts had not been provided and he was found to have been pecunious (June 2021).
• A v C – successfully submitted that the claim should be struck out, the claimant had behaved unreasonably and that the defendant’s costs should be awarded (June 2021).
• W v C – successfully made submissions, so that less than one-third of the sum that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (May 2021).
• R v A – successfully made submissions, so that the intervention rate was applied and about one-tenth of the sum on the credit hire invoice was awarded (May 2021).
• M v E – successfully resisted the claimant’s application for relief from sanctions, so that the claimant was debarred from asserting impecuniosity; and submitted that, as the matter had to be adjourned, the claimant should pay defendant counsel’s fee (May 2021).
• C v A – successfully agreed about a 60 percent reduction in the sum that was claimed for credit hire and submitted that the issue fee should be reduced by about one-third (May 2021).
• Q v S – successfully made submissions, so that: the claimant was found to be pecunious; period was reduced; and less than half of the sum that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (April 2021).
• B v K – successfully cross-examined, so that the claimant was debarred from asserting impecuniosity; and made submissions, so that less than one-half of the sum that was claimed for credit hire and only about 60 percent of the costs that were claimed were awarded (April 2021).
• S v Y – successfully made submissions, so that: less than one-tenth of the sum that was claimed for credit hire; and about 60 percent of the costs that were claimed were awarded (April 2021).
• A v A – successfully resisted the claimant’s application for relief from sanctions, so that she was debarred from relying on impecuniosity; and made submissions, so that less than half of the sum that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (April 2021).
• B v A – successfully made submissions, so that less than one-third of the sum that was claimed for credit hire and about half of the costs that were claimed were awarded (March 2021).
• C v D – successfully made submissions, so that less than one-third of the sum that was claimed for credit hire and only about three-quarters of the costs that were claimed were awarded (March 2021).
• F v A – successfully: resisted the claimant’s application to adjourn; and submitted that the claim for about £5,000 for credit hire be dismissed and that the claimant should pay defendant counsel’s fee (March 2021).
• B v M – successfully: resisted the claimant’s application for relief from sanctions; and made submissions, so that less than one-third of the sum that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (March 2021).
• G v A – successfully resisted the claimant’s applications to file witness evidence out of time and for relief from sanctions in respect of a debarring order (March 2021).
• C v W – successfully: resisted the claimant’s application for relief from sanctions; and made submissions, so that about one-ninth of the sum that was claimed for credit hire and only half of the claimant’s legal representative’s costs were awarded (March 2021).
• M v A – successfully submitted that the claimant had not overcome the low threshold of proving need for social and domestic use – the car was used ‘for all general, social and domestic reasons including attending GP, hospital and dentist appointments when necessary, grocery shopping and socialising with friends and family’ – and that the correct measure of loss for a profit-earning taxi was loss of profits, so that only about one-nineteenth of the sum that was claimed for a replacement car and only half of the costs that were claimed were awarded (March 2021).
• C v A – successfully: submitted that the claimant was debarred from asserting impecuniosity and need for an additional driver was not evidenced; and made submissions, so that less than half of the sum that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (March 2021).
• A v B – successfully made submissions, so that about half of the sum that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (March 2021).
• A v B – successfully submitted that, as there was no evidence of need for an additional driver in the claimant’s statement, that issue should be excluded; and made submissions, so that about one-third of the sum that was claimed for credit hire and only about two-thirds of the costs that were claimed were awarded (Feb 2021).
• M v C – successfully submitted that the claimant should pay the defendant’s costs of adjourning (Feb 2021).
• B v D – successfully submitted that the claim for over £7,600 should be dismissed, on the basis that the low hurdle of proving need was not met by merely including the words ‘social, domestic and pleasure purposes’ in a witness statement (Feb 2021).
• D v A – successfully: submitted that the claimant was debarred from asserting impecuniosity; resisted the claimant’s application for relief; and made submissions, so that less than one-quarter of the sum that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (Feb 2021).
• B v P – successfully resisted the claimant’s application for relief from sanctions, and made submissions, so that about one-third of the sum that was claimed for credit hire was awarded and the claim for recovery was dismissed (Feb 2021).
• H v A – successfully made submissions, so that less than half of the sum that was claimed for credit hire was awarded and there was no order as to costs (February 2021).
• F v G – successfully made submissions, so that the intervention rate, about one-fifth of the sum that was claimed for credit hire and less than half of the costs that were claimed were awarded (February 2021).
• S v W – successfully made submissions, so that: the claimant’s application for relief from sanctions was dismissed; less than half of the sum that was claimed for credit hire was awarded; and the legal representative’s costs and the hearing fee were not awarded (January 2021).
• A v A – successfully made submissions, so that less than half of the sum that was claimed for credit hire was awarded and there was no order as to costs (January 2021).
• M v H – successfully made submissions, so that the claim was struck out and about £2,500 in costs was awarded to the defendant on the basis that the claimant had behaved unreasonably (January 2021).
• C v S – successfully made submissions, so that the intervention rate and about one-sixth of the sum that was claimed for credit hire were awarded and there was no order as to costs (January 2021).
• H v S – successfully submitted that the claims for credit hire, recovery and storage should be dismissed on the basis of enforceability (January 2021).
• T v S – successfully made submissions, so that: about one-quarter of the sum that was claimed for credit hire was awarded; and the hearing fee was not awarded, on the basis that it was unnecessary in light of the defendant’s offer (December 2020).
• A v A & Three Ors – successfully submitted that the claim should be struck out and costs of more than £2,700 should be awarded to the second defendant, on the basis that the claimant had behaved unreasonably (December 2020).
• M v D & Anor – successfully submitted that the claimant failed to overcome the low hurdle of proving need for a replacement van, so that the claim was dismissed (December 2020).
• H v W – successfully: resisted an application for relief from sanctions; and made submissions, so that about one-third of the sum that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (December 2020).
• P v A – successfully made submissions, so that: about one-third of the sum that was claimed for credit hire was awarded; and the legal representative’s costs were not awarded (December 2020).
• W v U – successfully made submissions, so that: relief from sanctions was granted; the claim was reinstated; and there was no order as to costs (December 2020).
• R v C – successfully made submissions, so that less than half of the sum that was claimed for credit hire was awarded and the hearing fee was not awarded (December 2020).
• A v W – successfully submitted that failure to provide an engineers’ report and evidence in support of the pleaded plea of impecuniosity should be marked by awarding fixed costs and disbursements proportionate to the judgment sum (as opposed to the amount that was claimed) (November 2020).
• A v E – successfully made submissions, so that: the claimant’s application for relief from sanctions was dismissed; and less than one-third of the sum that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (November 2020).
• O v W – successfully submitted that the claimant should be awarded about half of the issue fee, despite the defendant driver being held liable for causing a road traffic collision (November 2020).
• S v J – successfully made an oral application to rely on evidence that only came to the judge’s attention on the morning of the hearing, so that: less than half of the sum that was claimed for credit hire was awarded; and a recital was included in the final order that ‘an engineers’ fee is not a head of loss’ (November 2020).
• F v A – successfully made submissions, so that less than half of the sum that was claimed for credit hire was awarded and the hearing fee was not awarded (November 2020).
• C v H – successfully submitted that: the claim for credit hire for over £23,000 should be dismissed, on the basis that a claim should instead have been brought for loss of profit; and that the claimant should pay the defendant’s costs of about £3,500 (October 2020).
• T v W – successfully made submissions, so that about one-quarter of the sum that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (October 2020).
• C v A – successfully submitted that: the claimant was able to travel to work over a seven-day period by walking half an hour from home to the tube using public transport, and walking half an hour from the tube back home, therefore the claimant had not overcome the low hurdle of proving need for a hire car in Giles v Thompson; the defendant should not have to pay the legal representative’s costs or the hearing fee; and a recital should be included in the order that ‘the engineers’ fee is not a recoverable head of loss or disbursement on the small claims track’ (October 2020).
• J v S – successfully made submissions, so that about one-quarter of the sum that was claimed for credit hire, and about four-fifths of the sum that was claimed for repairs, was awarded, and the claimant’s costs were reduced by about one-fifth on the basis that impecuniosity was pleaded but dropped at the final hearing (September 2020).
• S v D – successfully made submissions, so that about a third of the sum that was claimed for credit hire and less than half of the costs that were claimed were awarded (September 2020).
• D v E – successfully submitted that the claim for credit hire should be dismissed because the credit hire agreement was unenforceable (September 2020).
• W v H – successfully: resisted the claimant’s application for relief from sanctions, so that the claimant was debarred from asserting impecuniosity; and made submissions, so that about one-quarter of the sum that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (August 2020).
• M v A – successfully submitted that the claim for credit hire should be dismissed, on the basis that it should instead have been brought for loss of profit (August 2020).
• G v A – successfully submitted that the claimant had not proved that she was impecunious, so that the basic hire rate was awarded (August 2020).
• N v T – successfully submitted that: the claim for credit hire should be dismissed, on the basis that the agreement was unenforceable; and the claimant had behaved unreasonably, so that the defendant was awarded costs (July 2020).
• B v A – successfully submitted that impecuniosity was not proven, so that about one-third of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (July 2020).
• V v T – successfully submitted that an intervention letter was served,  Copley-compliant and it was reasonable to accept the offer, so that about one-fifth of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (July 2020).
• H v R – in the words of the judgment:  “During careful cross-examination by defence counsel, the claimant was taken to various inconsistencies in her evidence, accepting ultimately … that certainly the documents exhibited were not the full account of her financial position.”  There was no finding of impecuniosity, the basic hire rate was awarded amounting to about one-third of the amount that was claimed for credit hire and the other two heads of special damage were dismissed (July 2020).
• L v V – successfully represented the defendant, so that, despite the court awarding judgment for the full amount, the claimant was nevertheless found to have behaved unreasonably and ordered to pay the defendant’s costs of about £800 (July 2020).
• W v B – successfully made submissions, so that about one-third of the sum that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (June 2020).
• L v H – successfully made submissions, so that about one-quarter of the sum that was claimed for credit hire was awarded and the hearing fee was not awarded, on the basis that there was no evidence of impecuniosity, and the claimant failed to beat an offer that was made before the hearing fee was due (June 2020).
• L v A – successfully made submissions, so that about one-fifth of the sum that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (June 2020).
• A v A – successfully: resisted the claimant’s application for relief from sanctions and permission to rely on evidence that was filed and served before the final hearing was relisted; and applied for the claimant to pay the defendant’s costs, on the basis that the claimant had behaved unreasonably (May 2020).
• H v T – successfully made submissions, so that about one- quarter of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded and nothing was awarded for three of the other heads of loss (May 2020).
• S v S – started to cross-examine the claimant on discrepancies in the evidence before he left the hearing and successfully submitted that; the claim should be dismissed as the burden of proof had not been discharged; and that the claimant had behaved unreasonably by leaving the hearing, so that the court awarded costs to the defendant (April 2020).
• S v Z – successfully submitted that, although the claimant had substantially succeeded, no costs should be awarded to mark that the claimant had behaved unreasonably including for the reason that the claimant’s statement was materially incorrect before it was adopted (without amendment) as her evidence in chief (April 2020).
• C v A – successfully submitted that there was no evidence that the claimant needed to hire a vehicle and although the matter was adjourned to allow further evidence, it was on the condition that the claimant pay the defendant’s costs to be assessed if not agreed (April 2020).
• W v C – successfully made submissions, so that less than half of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (March 2020).
• V v R – successfully: applied for relief from sanctions about a month before trial, after admission of serious and significant breaches of court directions without good reason; made an oral application for permission to rely on documents evidencing the claim for special damages that had only been filed and served three days previously; and resisted the defendant’s application for costs (about £8,000) that exceeded fixed recoverable costs (£300) (March 2020).
• A v S – successfully submitted that: the court should dismiss the claim; and that the claimant behaved unreasonably, so that the claimant should pay the defendant’s costs (March 2020).
• M v C – successfully made submissions, so that about one-fifth of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (March 2020).
• K v E – successfully made submissions, so that less than half of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (February 2020).
• S v N – successfully made submissions, so that about one-fifth of the sum that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (February 2020).
• W v B – successfully submitted that: the claim for diminution in value, policy excess and interest should be dismissed; and that the counterclaim for the defendant’s policy excess, the defendant insurer’s outlay and interest should be allowed (February 2020).
• B v A – successfully submitted that: the claims for credit hire, engineers’ fee and interest should be dismissed; and that the hearing fee should not be awarded, on the basis that the claim for repairs was admitted in the defence (February 2020).
• T v C – successfully made submissions, so that the claim for credit hire was dismissed (February 2020).
• W v C – successfully made an oral application: to strike out the claim as an abuse of process; and that that the claimant behaved unreasonably, so that the claimant was ordered to pay costs of £1,000 to the defendant (February 2020).
• L v P – successfully made submissions, so that the hearing fee was not awarded, despite judgment for about £6,000 (February 2020).
• P v M – successfully applied: to strike out the only head of loss in dispute; and for the defendant’s costs on the basis that the claimant had behaved unreasonably (January 2020).
• E v A – successfully: resisted an application to add another defendant; invited the court to strike out the claim; and applied for the defendant’s costs on the basis that the claimant behaved unreasonably (January 2020).
• C v W – successfully submitted that the claim for credit hire should be dismissed as need was not made out (January 2020).
• P v T – successfully made submissions, so that: about one-eighth of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded; and fixed costs were reduced so that they were proportionate to the judgment sum (as opposed to the amount claimed) (January 2020).
• B v P – successfully made submissions, so that: about one-ninth of the sum that was claimed for credit hire was awarded; and the costs that were claimed were reduced (November 2019).
• K v B & Anor – successfully applied to strike out the claimant’s claim for about £12,000 in respect of credit hire, on the basis that there was a legitimate concern with the claimant’s level of English, and, in absence of a translated witness statement, the court could not place any weight on it (October 2019).
• B v M – successfully settled on the defendant’s terms for about one-third of the amount that was claimed (October 2019).
• H v A – successfully submitted that an intervention letter was  Copley-compliant and served on the claimant’s solicitors, who were acting as agents for their client, and so, due to the agent’s failure to pass this letter on to the claimant, about one-eighth of the amount that was claimed for credit hire was awarded (October 2019).
• S v I – successfully settled on the defendant’s terms (September 2019).
• P v E – successfully resisted an application to adjourn a trial, during which, the court opined on the claimant’s submissions that: “I have never heard such rubbish in my life … That is total nonsense” (August 2019).
• B v L – successfully: made an oral application to strike out the case as an abuse of process; and submitted that the claimant behaved unreasonably, so that the defendant’s costs were awarded in the sum of £2,500 (October 2019).
• V v A – adjourned when the defendant’s witnesses did not attend, and, on behalf of the defendant, successfully secured a finding of unreasonable behaviour, so that the claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs of resisting the claimant’s (successful) application for relief from sanctions (July 2019).
• G v U – successfully: challenged the claimant’s witness statements (on the basis that neither complied with court directions, including stating the names of the parties, case number, and the address of the witness); and submitted that there was no evidence of loss in respect of damages for a fleet vehicle, so that, although the cost of repairs was allowed, the claimant was limited to half of his fixed costs (July 2019).
• K v H – successfully challenged the claimant’s written evidence, which attempted to rebut the defendant’s basic hire rates evidence, on the basis that that witness was employed by a subsidiary of a relevant company and so that witness was not independent (July 2019).
• M v H – successfully rebutted a plea of impecuniosity, by eliciting in cross-examination that statements for a relevant bank account had not been disclosed and rebutted fast track costs, despite particulars of claim for more than £10,000, so that the ‘normal track’ was the fast track (June 2019).
• D v K – successfully submitted that the claim should be dismissed on the basis that need for a hire vehicle was not established (February 2019).

Public inquiry

• Office of the Traffic Commissioner v S – successfully represented the company, owner and transport manager, so that the Commissioner ended the inquiry by stating that: “Mr [S], let me tell you.  If you did not have Mr Bright, you would not be leaving with your licence” (March 2023).
• Office of the Traffic Commissioner v R – successfully represented the company and director of that company, so that the indication was given that the Traffic Commissioner was unlikely to call either to public inquiry (March 2022).
• Office of the Traffic Commissioner v L – successfully made submissions, so that there was no further regulatory action (except undertakings) after a public inquiry to consider the good repute of the licence holder and director to hold the licence (February 2022).
• Office of the Traffic Commissioner v T – successfully submitted that there should be no further regulatory action after a public inquiry to consider the good repute of the licence holder and transport managers to hold the licence (December 2021).
• Office of the Traffic Commissioner v S – successfully submitted that there should be no further regulatory action after a public inquiry to consider the fitness of the company and its director to hold the licence (December 2021).
• Office of the Traffic Commissioner v G – successfully represented a sole trader, so that, although an operator licence was revoked and a disqualification as transport manager was ordered, there was no disqualification as an operator (July 2020).
• Office of the Traffic Commissioner v P – successfully: represented a company in a public inquiry, considering whether the operator was of good repute and had appropriate financial standing; invited the commissioner to hear from the director of that company, who was not able to verify his identity in accordance with the letter calling that company to public inquiry; made an oral application for a period of grace before a standard national goods vehicle licence for five vehicles and seven trailers was revoked, despite failure to produce original or certified copies of evidence demonstrating financial standing; and avoided regulatory action despite the commissioner finding “a problem with the maintenance documents” (November 2019).
• Office of the Traffic Commissioner v D & Anor – successfully: represented two companies in a public inquiry considering the fitness of those companies and their directors to hold an operator licence; and applied for a restricted goods operator’s licence to authorise the use of three vehicles (September 2019).