Justin undertakes all aspects of personal injury work. He has a particular interest in workplace claims (especially where liability expert evidence is required) and claims involving vulnerable road users (children, pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists). His approach to personal injury actions is to assist solicitors to take control of litigation via use of the available procedural tools (Part 18s, Replies) which assists in achieving swift outcomes.
Justin has experience in representing interested parties at inquests.
He has experience in drafting complex, high-value Schedules of Loss in catastrophic and fatal accident claims.
Recent notable cases include:
- F v ABC Group (2024). The Claimant was injured whilst working as a site supervisor on a construction site. He was assisting offloading large wooden “mats” used to protect the ground where heavy machinery is working. Whilst assisting the placement of one of the mats the telehandler tipped forwards crushing the Claimant. The telehandler was so poorly calibrated that it could tip without warning lights sounding in the cab. There was a dispute between the hirer of the telehandler and the employer as to who was liable and an allegation of contributory negligence in relation to where the Claimant was standing. The liability only trial compromised a few days before trial on an 85/15 basis in the Claimant’s favour.The Claimant sustained a significant open fracture to the right tibia and fibula. He suffered bilateral rib fractures and spinal fractures at T12, L1 and L3. Orthopaedic, neurosurgery, respiratory, endocrinology, pain, psychiatric, care and accommodation evidence was sought. The matter was not able to be compromised at a JSM as the D would not compensate the Claimant for accommodation (a bungalow). However, compromise was reached in the sum of £1.3 million at mediation (including accommodation).”
- Wiencek v Cope. The claimant was seriously injured whilst helping catch an escaped horse “Rebel”. Liability was disputed primarily on the basis that the claimant was a knowing volunteer. The case illustrates the complexity of claims involving animals but confirms that where a claimant is acting out of a sense of moral or civic duty, then liability can be established. Please see here for an article discussing the case.
- S v Brenntag & Suttons Transport Group. The claimant was a tanker driver employed by the second defendants delivering concentrated bleach for the first defendants. Whilst discharging he was sprayed with the product from a fault in the line sustaining chemical burns and PTSD. Despite multiple breaches of the COSHH the defendants denied liability seeking to blame each other. The claim settled shortly before trial.
- A (A Protected Party) v CIC Limited and Central Liverpool PCT. This case concerned a young man with brain injury acquired as a child. He was inappropriately placed in a care home with residents significantly more disabled than him one of whom would regularly assault him. He would often run away from the home and his advocate had both tried to transfer him from the home and had warned that if he ran away he would be at significant risk due to poor road sense. The claimant did run away and was struck by a car on a motorway. The claimant suffered a serious spinal injury and lost his right arm. Liability was disputed and expert evidence had to be commissioned. A compromise was reached in excess of £3 million on the basis of a 92.5/7.5 split in liability.
- A v MOD. The claimant was assaulted by fellow privates whilst posted in Cyprus. The claim was advanced on the basis of failure to act to prevent previous incidents of bullying. Compromise was reached at a joint settlement meeting for a six figure sum.
- D v Football Club. The claimant injured his shoulder whilst undertaking exercises as a trainee at a rugby football club ending any hopes the claimant had for a professional career. The claim hinged on evidence from expert physiotherapists and settled for a significant sum prior to trial.
- B v Ministry of Justice. The claimant was employed as an instructor at a prison when he was stabbed in the neck with a screwdriver by a prisoner. The claim was advanced on the basis that the prisoner’s history indicated that he should not have been allowed to work with tools and after an initial denial of liability settled.
