Dominic Bright

Personal Injury

Dominic’s personal injury practice is founded upon repeat instructions by professional clients acting for defendant insurers where credit hire, liability and / or pain suffering and loss of amenity are in dispute.

He has successfully applied for a substantial third party costs order against a credit hire company.

Dominic has also successfully submitted that a claimant is fundamentally dishonest, QOCS should be disapplied because the claimant’s conduct was likely to obstruct the just disposal of proceedings and applied for his professional client to come off the record.

He has a proven track record of successfully submitting that claims should be dismissed, struck out and / or that costs should be awarded to the defendant on the basis that the claimant had behaved unreasonably.

In London Borough of Islington v Borous [2022] EWCA Civ 1242, Dominic acted as sole counsel on behalf of the appellant in the first of two, combined, second appeals.

He co-authored a comprehensive case summary on the leading authority analysing Qualified One-way Costs Shifting.

Liability

• S v B – successfully cross-examined and made submissions, so that the claim for about £20,000 in credit hire charges and general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity was dismissed, the counterclaim for about £10,000 was allowed and costs of the counterclaim as claimed were awarded (November 2023).
• D v T – successfully cross-examined and made submissions, so that the defendant was found liable (September 2023).
• B v B – successfully made submissions, so that the claim was dismissed (June 2023).
• A v M – successfully negotiated settlement on the day of trial for £3,500 in respect of pain, suffering and loss of amenity, over £3,000 for vehicle damage and costs of about £8,000 (June 2023).
• W v H – successfully cross-examined and made submissions, so that the claim was allowed and more than 115 percent of the amount for PSLA that was sought was in fact awarded (March 2023).
• S v B – successfully applied to adjourn a fast track trial when it was called on because, without explanation, the defendant did not attend (February 2023).
• H v E – successfully cross-examined, so that the claimant’s witness admitted that not only did she know him, she lived with him, and made submissions so that the claim was dismissed and the defendant was awarded the costs it claimed on the basis that the claimant had behaved unreasonably (February 2023).
• F v R – successfully made submissions, so that the claim was dismissed (February 2023).
• G v N – successfully made submissions, so that the claim was dismissed and the counterclaim was allowed with interest (January 2023).
• L v A – successfully applied for an adjournment because the defendant driver was unable to give evidence without the assistance of an interpreter (December 2022).
• S v G – successfully submitted that: the claimant (who attended, confirmed her statement and gave oral evidence) had not satisfied the burden of proof, despite the defendant failing to attend, confirm her statement or give oral evidence; and the claimant should pay the defendant’s costs on the basis that the claimant had behaved unreasonably (September 2022).
• Z v J & Anor – successfully submitted that the claim should be dismissed because the claimant had not proved causation (July 2022).
• B v A – successfully submitted that the claim should be dismissed because liability had not been proven (July 2022).
• C v V – successfully: applied for permission to rely on an expert report; and made submissions, so that the claim was dismissed and the claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs as claimed (May 2022).
• O v I – successfully made submissions, so that no weight was placed on witness statement on behalf of a witness who did not attend and the claim was dismissed (January 2022).
• K v P – successfully submitted that no weight should be placed on two witness statements because no reasons were given for the non-attendance of the witnesses who wrote them and the defendant wished to cross-examine them (January 2022).
• B v A – successfully: resisted the claimant’s video and text message going into evidence; and invited the court to dismiss the case, with the judgment noting that: “In his submissions, Mr Bright helpfully reminded me of the settled route to judgments such as this with the four-stage process” (December 2021).
• S v M – successfully negotiated settlement including provision for costs (December 2021).
• G v A – successfully submitted that: the case should be adjourned, so that it is decided by a judge who did not have the benefit of evidence in the claimant’s bundle for which she was denied permission to rely upon; and that the claimant pay the defendant’s associated costs and expenses of over £500 (December 2021).
• N v V – successfully submitted that the claimant should pay the defendant’s costs of an adjournment, on the basis that her witness statement did not comply a court order and the civil procedure rules (November 2021).
• F v A – successfully made submissions, so that: the claimant could only rely on dash cam footage if the unedited footage was served on the defendant; the defendant was granted permission to rely on a further witness statement dealing with the same; and the claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs on the basis that she had behaved unreasonably (August 2021).
• D v N – successfully submitted that the claim should be dismissed on the basis that liability was not proved (July 2021).
• M v E – successfully submitted that liability was not established (June 2021).
• T v L – successfully submitted that the claim should be dismissed as the claimant had not established liability, despite technological issues with the defendant giving evidence via CVP, as he was in between dental surgery appointments in Romania and using a mobile telephone (April 2021).
• K v S – successfully submitted that it was disproportionate to strike out the counterclaim, despite breach of three clear orders, made on separate occasions, directing the same additional evidence to be filed and served (April 2021).
• K v A & Anor – successfully submitted that the claim should be dismissed because the claimant had not established liability (March 2021).
• O v V – successfully submitted that there was no collision between the claimant and the defendant’s cars, so that the claim was dismissed (January 2021).
• F v A – successfully submitted that some evidential weight should be given to hearsay evidence of a witness who was known to the defendant, so that the claim was dismissed (January 2021).
• B v P – successfully submitted that the claimant’s application, alleging that the defendant insurer withheld evidence and misrepresented facts, as well as the claim, should be dismissed, and that the claimant should pay the defendant’s costs on the basis that the claimant behaved unreasonably (December 2020).
• B v G – successfully made an oral application to rely on the key evidence in the counterclaim, which was filed and served the day before the final hearing, despite a finding that there was a serious and significant breach of a court order, for which there was no good reason (September 2020).
• M v C – successfully resisted the claimant’s application for relief from sanctions, and made submissions, so that judgment was awarded on the counterclaim in the sum that was claimed with interest (September 2020).
• U v H – successfully resisted the defendant’s application for relief from sanctions and invited judgment to be awarded for the full sum claimed with interest (September 2020).
• S v E – successfully resisted two videos being admitted into evidence, which the claimant alleged were contemporaneous, supported the claim and undermined the defence (September 2020).
• A v M – successfully applied: to strike out the claimant’s claim for PSLA, vehicle damage and credit hire in the sum of about £15,000; and for the claimant to pay the defendant’s costs of £4,500, on the basis that the protection afforded by QOCS was disapplied because the conduct of the claimant was likely to obstruct the just disposal of proceedings (August 2020).
• B & Anor v A – successfully applied: to strike out the claimants’ claims of £16,000 (to which the defendant admitted liability); and for the claimants to pay the defendant’s full costs of about £5,200, on the basis that the protection afforded by QOCS was disapplied because the conduct of the claimants was likely to obstruct the just disposal of proceedings (August 2020).
• W v H – successfully applied for: an order for pre-action disclosure, on the basis that the applicant and respondent were likely to be parties to proceedings, standard disclosure extended to the documents sought and disclosure was desirable; and costs of £1,700 be paid to the applicant (August 2020).
• F v P – successfully applied: to set aside an order granting relief from sanctions, so that the claim remained struck out; and for the claimant to pay the defendant’s costs of about £1,800 (July 2020).
• R-B v N – successfully submitted that the claim should be dismissed because liability had not been established (June 2020).
• C v H – successfully applied: to exclude the claimant’s statement that was filed and served three days after the date for exchange; and for the claim to be struck out because the claimant had no evidence (May 2020).
• C v L – successfully applied to add a second defendant and Part 20 claimant (February 2020).
• G v T – successfully invited the court to dismiss the claim, on the basis of the evidence elicited in cross-examination that the offside of the claimant’s vehicle collided with the front nearside of the defendant’s vehicle on a roundabout (January 2020).
• G v A – successfully: cross-examined the claimant, eliciting evidence of other accidents around the time of the index accident, so that the court could not be sure that the index accident caused the damage alleged in the particulars of claim; and applied for costs on the basis that the claimant behaved unreasonably (January 2020).
• S v R – successfully resisted admission of a handwritten, contemporaneous note, allegedly admitting liability, on the basis that it was not on the defendant’s list of documents (August 2019).
• P v W – successfully cross-examined, so that the judge did not need to hear closing submissions from the defendant before dismissing the claim and allowing the counterclaim (August 2019).
• S v A – successfully cross-examined the claimant, so that the judge found that the claimant answered questions “in an unnecessarily argumentative way” and dismissed the claim (July 2019).
• H v A – successfully cross-examined, so that, in the words of the judge, the claimant accepted that his pleaded case was “completely incorrect” and his claim was dismissed (July 2019).
• Y v N – successfully applied for permission to resile from a pre-issue admission of liability, after judgment had been entered, the judgment sum paid and the key evidence had not been filed or served (June 2019).
• Advised a medium-sized business on liability, contributory negligence, quantum, mediation and offers to settle, following alleged facial injuries (March 2019).
• K v E – successfully applied: to strike out the claimant’s evidence, as the claimant could not understand questions in cross-examination, his directions questionnaire did not confirm that an interpreter was required, and his statement of case and witness statement did not conform to the CPR: and for costs to be awarded to the defendant on the basis that the claimant had behaved unreasonably (April 2019).

Pain, suffering & loss of amenity

• C v P – successfully made submissions, so that: his client’s Part 36 offer was beaten; and indemnity costs and five percent interest on costs and damages were awarded (April 2022).
• S v P – successfully cross-examined and made submissions, so that the claimant was found to be fundamentally dishonest (September 2021).
• Advice on causation, quantum, responding to a Part 36 offer and making a Part 36 offer following the proposed claimant’s alleged fall in a fruit and vegetable shop (June 2019).
• A v C – successfully applied for: the Stage 3 hearing (to determine quantum for credit hire, recovery and storage, loss of earnings and general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity) to be vacated; and the Part 8 claim be transferred to Part 7 (May 2020).
• Advice on quantum following a road traffic collision, in which a minor suffered physical injuries, including to his lower back, right hip and right leg and psychological injuries, including initial acute stress symptoms and contribution towards Autism Spectrum Disorder symptoms, namely separation anxiety and enuresis (March 2020).
• Advice on prospects of success ahead of a multi-track trial, following a claim for general damages for personal injury and special damages for medical expenses, the pre-accident value of a vehicle, credit hire charges of about £30,000, storage and recovery charges and loss of use of a vehicle, where there was an allegation of fundamental dishonesty, application to strike out and disapply QOCS on the basis that the claimant’s conduct was likely to obstruct the just disposal of proceedings (February 2020).
• O (A Minor) & Anor v H & Anor – successfully applied for costs on behalf of the defendant after an infant settlement approval hearing (January 2020).
• P v S – successfully applied for his professional client to come off the record for the claimant on the day of the trial, where the defendant indicated that he would apply to strike out the claim, disapply QOCS and seek costs of about £6,000 (December 2019).
• B v L – successfully made an oral application at a directions hearing for: strike out; £4,000 costs be awarded to the defendant; and QOCS be disapplied, on the basis that the claimant disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and his conduct was likely to obstruct the just disposal of proceedings (October 2019).
• Y & Anor v E – successfully applied for permission to rely on expert evidence in a low-value claim, despite a failure to apply to amend / vary directions for trial (that did not grant permission to rely on an expert) and a finding that the application was not prompt (October 2019).
• M v G – successfully represented a taxi driver in an alleged “low velocity impact” who was awarded: about £2,300 general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity; about £6,700 special damages for credit hire, vehicle repairs, physiotherapy and miscellaneous expenses; and about £9,000 for costs, disbursements and witness expenses (September 2019).
• S v E – successfully secured a court award of damages that was not greater than the defendant’s final offer in a Stage 3 hearing and nothing was awarded for six sessions of cognitive behavioural therapy, which were recommended by a consultant psychologist, so that the claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs (July 2019).
• Advice on: the defendant’s strike out application; the claimant’s relief from sanctions application; quantum (headaches for two years, neck injury for two years, jaw injury for six months, chest injury for six weeks, driving anxiety for six years and four months and post-traumatic stress disorder for an indeterminate period); and making a Part 36 offer to settle (July 2019).
• K v R – successfully secured a court award of damages that was not greater than the defendant’s final offer in a Stage 3 hearing, so that the claimant was ordered to pay the defendants costs, plus interest (July 2019).
• N v W – successfully applied for specific disclosure and costs (February 2019).