James enjoys a busy personal injury practice, acting for and advising both claimants and defendants. He has experience in a wide range of cases all the way from road traffic accidents to industrial disease cases and everything in between, such as accidents at work and employer’s liability claims, claims under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, assaults, and psychological injuries.
As well as appearing in court, James is regularly instructed to draft pleadings, Part 18 requests for information, Part 35 questions to experts and to advise in writing on liability, quantum, settlement and tactical issues that arise in litigation.
James also has experience in clinical negligence work and has been instructed on cases including the alleged negligent nursing treatment and defects caused during childbirth.
Examples of recent personal injury and clinical negligence work
- Palmer and others v Mitchell and others (2018): Represented a claimant/Part 20 defendant in a claim and counterclaim arising out of a road traffic accident. The matter involved extensive arguments as to causation of injuries and the defendant’s application for a finding of fundamental dishonesty was resisted successfully.
- Ramsey v Kelly (2017): Acted for the Claimant in a claim arising out of a road traffic accident between a cyclist and a motor vehicle, giving rise to issues of breach of the Highways Act 1835 and contributory negligence.
- Oldman (Executor of the Estate of Bertie Oldman) v DEFRA (2017): Represented the defendant in a multi-track trial of claim for personal injuries arising out of the deceased exposure to asbestos whilst working as a marine engineer.
- Surtees v Ministry of Justice (2017): Represented the defendant in a claim brought by a prisoner under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. At trial the claim was found to be fundamentally dishonest and QOCS was disapplied.
- Fahad v Ministry of Justice (2016): Acted for the defendant in a multi-track trial and successfully defended a claim for assault, which encompassed arguments as to the reasonable, necessary and proportionate use of force, cross-examination of medical experts and the appropriateness and quantum of potential aggravated damages.