Employers; Liability

Elizabeth has advised on employers’ liability claims and attended many trials. Elizabeth enjoys the legal argument which often arises in these cases and application of the case law. Elizabeth has drafted many Defences in this area and more recently pleaded Defences post the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013.  Examples of recent cases include:

• Defending a company post the Enterprise Act in a case to which the Manual Handling Regulations applied. The burden of proof in respect of reasonable practicability being reversed the Claimant could not establish a case. The case was dismissed;
• Successfully defending the owner of a café at a staff canteen. The employer alleged the café was at fault when a polystyrene cup disintegrated and burned their employee. The Judge found the employer was at fault not the café owner;
• Defending a company at trial where it was alleged appropriate PPE had not been provided and there was no suitable risk assessment in place at the time of the accident;
• Advising a Claimant on whether the Defendant could, if they were successful in establishing contributory negligence, make the Claimant pay a contribution to the claims made by others who were injured in the accident
• Successfully argued an employers’ liability case should be struck out (at trial) as there was no evidence to support the Claimant’s pleaded case.

Road Traffic Accidents

Elizabeth has conducted numerous trials of road traffic accidents where liability is firmly in dispute. Elizabeth is objectively able to assess the litigation risk of such cases and test the client’s evidence in conference prior to vigorously cross examining the opposing witnesses. Elizabeth is currently advising in a case where the Claimant was injured following a train crash.

Public, Product and Occupiers’ Liability

Elizabeth has acted for a number of Local Authorities defending public liability claims. She also acts for Claimants. Elizabeth recently defended a Local Authority in a case in which breach of duty was admitted and the Claimant was put to proof of the accident and causation. Due to Elizabeth’s skillful cross examination the Claimant’s claim was dismissed. Other examples of recent cases include:

• Representing a dance school after a child fell and sustained an injury during a class;
• Successfully defended the Local Authority after a child accidentally put his hand through some glass in the door;
• Successfully defended the Local Authority in a tripping case. Following cross examination of the Claimant the Claimant discontinued her case. The mechanism of the accident as it was described in court demonstrated the alleged defect could not have been the cause of the accident.

Serious Injury and Catastrophic

Elizabeth has drafted schedules of loss which include substantial claims for past and future losses and advised on the prospects of beating offers. Elizabeth also has an in depth understanding of the tactical nature of such cases which often include issues of causation and disclosure in respect of the medical evidence which has been obtained.

Elizabeth has represented both the Claimant and Defendant in Joint Settlement meetings securing settlements of over £150,000.

Industrial Disease

Elizabeth has developed a specialism in industrial disease work. Elizabeth has particular expertise in the area of HAVS/VWF cases due to the advice and experience Elizabeth has gained in solicitors’ negligence claims.These claims are brought on behalf of the miners whose VWF/HAVS claims were undervalued. Elizabeth recently represented the Claimant at a 3 day multi-track trial which included consideration of the Claimant’s original diagnosis of VWF and limitation arguments.

Elizabeth has also advised on the complex issues involved in Noise Induced Hearing Loss claims. Currently this area of Elizabeth’s practice has been heavily Defendant biased advising on limitation issues, breach of duty and causation. Elizabeth finds the medical issues which surround this work particularly interesting. Elizabeth recently attended a NIHL Conference in Leeds at which Professor Lutman’s most recent paper was discussed with a panel of medical experts.

Elizabeth successfully persuaded a Circuit Judge to dismiss the Claimant’s appeal in a NIHL case in which a District Judge gave the Defendant permission to obtain their own medical evidence with only 10 days before trial.

“Liz was great.  Very tenacious and handled a very tricky Claimant brilliantly.  Must have been close to 4 hours cross-examination!” feedback from Mr Avrom Topperman  former partner of Counter Fraud Services Keoghs.

Elizabeth has extensive experience in fraud/LVI/putting to proof cases. She recognises the attention to detail which is required in such cases whether acting for the Defendant or Claimant and thrives on finding that crucial piece of evidence/ link to secure a successful outcome.

Elizabeth has been instructed in many cases to test the Client’s evidence in conference, placing the client under pressure to assess the Claimant’s credibility or whether the Defendant has sufficient evidence to plead fraud.

Elizabeth has experience of drafting defences in which staged accidents have been alleged and fraud generally.

Elizabeth acts principally for the Defendant in fraud and quasi fraud cases.  With many years of experience in this area Elizabeth is able to effectively and vigorously cross-examine the opposing party at trial with a successful outcome on many occasions.

Elizabeth is now attending trials which also involve allegations of credit hire fraud.

Examples of recent cases Elizabeth has attended in this area include:

• Attending many conferences with Defendants which resulted in a detailed defence with sufficient evidence to allege fraud.
• Providing advice on further investigations which are needed and the prospects of obtaining a finding of fundamental dishonesty.
• Multi-track trials for the Defendant seeking a finding of fundamental dishonesty with allegations of fraud linked to the personal injury and credit hire claims.
• Road traffic accident in which the Claimant pursued a loss of earnings claim which was false.  Applying section 57 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 the whole claim was dismissed with a judgement for the Claimant to pay the Defendant’s costs.
• Seeking a finding of fundamental dishonesty for the Defendant in a personal injury claim in which the Judge dismissed the Claimant’s claim.
• Making a successful application for fundamental dishonesty against the Claimant without a trial, the Claimant having discontinued a few days before the trial was due to commence.
• Many cases in which the Claimant is put to proof on causation and following rigorous cross examination the Claimant’s claims are dismissed.
• The Claimant made a claim for personal injuries following a road traffic accident. The Defendant put the Claimant to proof. Due to Elizabeth’s effective cross examination of the Claimant, the Claimant discontinued halfway through his cross examination.
• Making an application for wasted costs in a case where the Claimant discontinued his claim halfway through Elizabeth’s cross examination.

Elizabeth has acted for clients in a variety of cases including bailee/bailor disputes, consumer contract and sale of goods. She has a particular interest in Company Law.

Elizabeth successfully represented the British Boxing Association at  trial .  The issues related to penalty clauses and restraint of trade.  Following cross examination of the Defendant a settlement was reached.

• Consumer Contracts – general experience
• Commercial Contracts – general experience

Professional Negligence

Elizabeth is a member of the Professional Negligence Bar Association.

Elizabeth has considerable experience in this field, developing a particular specialism in  solicitors’ negligence.

Elizabeth is one of three barristers in Chambers who have been working closely with the principal two firms of solicitors who have been running what the Judges have defined as the “VWF Professional Negligence Litigation” which comprises of “All claims alleging negligence against solicitors in the context of the advice given by those solicitors to the Claimant relating to the Claimant’s claim for damages in respect of his HAVS injury under the Claims Handling arrangement between the DTI and the Vibration White Finger Litigation Solicitors Group”. Elizabeth has been involved in providing general advice in such cases to include:

• Whether the original “Hawkesworth order” is binding
• Estoppel;
• Considerations in respect of the medical evidence – including the scope of such evidence and how VWF is diagnosed;
• Causation in professional negligence cases
• Limitation

Elizabeth has advised on many cases which fall within the heading “VWF Professional Negligence Litigation”. Such advice includes advising in conference, drafting Particulars of Claim and advices.

Elizabeth has attended interim hearings and recently represented the Claimant in a 3 day multi-track trial in the case of Chaffe v Hugh James Solicitors. Elizabeth was instructed to represent the Claimant only a few days before trial. The issues included arguments on limitation, breach of duty, causation and the diagnosis of VWF. Despite the Claimant losing at trial due to limitation, Elizabeth’s skilful cross examination and submissions on the advice the solicitor provided to the Claimant which the Claimant alleged was negligent, resulted in the Court finding the solicitor was in breach of duty.

Credit Hire

Elizabeth specialises in Defendant credit hire and has represented insurance companies nation wide in fast track and multi-track trials. Elizabeth has an awareness and experience of the various arguments the different credit hire companies attempt to run. She can objectively assess the litigation risks of the case and provide specialist advice as to the prospects of success and is a strong negotiator. Elizabeth has drafted many extensive defences on the issue of credit hire. Elizabeth has vast experience in running technical arguments relating both to the Consumer Credit Act and Statutory Instruments such as the Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work Regulations 1998 ex turpi causa and illegality in respect of the agreements. Recently Elizabeth has had specific experience in the following:

• Defending Claimant’s applications to submit rebuttal evidence following the disclosure of the Defendant’s rates evidence;
• Defending the Defendant’s position regarding the link between period and impecuniosity;
• The law surrounding the interpretation and reliability of the Defendant’s rates evidence since Stevens v Equity Syndicate Management;
• Costs in credit hire claims; in particular whether QOCS applies;
• Advising on whether a particular credit hire agreement was exempt from the Consumer Credit Act

Motor Fraud

Elizabeth has extensive experience in fraud/LVI/putting to proof cases. She recognises the attention to detail which is required in such cases whether acting for the Defendant or Claimant. Elizabeth has been instructed in many cases to test the Client’s evidence in conference; to assess the Claimant’s credibility or whether the Defendant has sufficient evidence to plead fraud. Elizabeth has experience of drafting defences in which staged accidents have been alleged and fraud generally.

Elizabeth has been instructed in many Case Management Conferences for Casey directions on behalf of the Claimant and Defendant. Elizabeth has acted for both the Claimant and Defendant at trial and is able to effectively and vigorously cross-examine the opposing party at trial with a successful result on many occasions. Examples of recent cases Elizabeth has attended in this area include:

• Conferences with Defendants which resulted in a detailed defence with sufficient evidence to allege fraud.       Consequently the Claimants discontinued before trial.
• Seeking a finding of fundamental dishonesty for the Defendant in a personal injury claim in which the Judge dismissed the Claimant’s claim.
• Making a successful application for fundamental dishonesty against the Claimant without a trial, the Claimant having discontinued a few days before the trial was due to commence.
• Breach of duty was accepted and the Claimant was put to proof regarding causation. The Claimant’s claim was dismissed as he could not prove he sustained an injury.
• The Claimant made a claim for personal injuries following a road traffic accident. The Defendant put the Claimant to proof. Due to Elizabeth’s effective cross examination of the Claimant, the Claimant discontinued half way through his cross examination
• Making an application for wasted costs in a case where the Claimant discontinued his claim half way through Elizabeth’s cross examination.

Elizabeth has developed a specialism in the area of costs, representing both Claimants and Defendants, which includes conducting detailed assessments.

Elizabeth’s experience includes applying to the Court to enforce the judgment for costs (under the QOCS rules) against the Claimant.  Examples of the basis on which the applications were made include fundamental dishonesty and abuse of process.

In addition she has represented both Claimants and Defendants at Costs Case Management Conferences for a variety of different multi-track claims; often assisting her instructing solicitor in analysing the parameters of the figures on the budget that should be agreed or disputed; looking at the risks and considering the figures which should be agreed.

Elizabeth successfully pursued an application for a third party costs order against a credit hire company.  The case is reported on lawtel:  Watson v (1) Nationwide Accident Repair Services LTD (2) Progress Vehicle Management (2018)

The following are some examples of costs issues which Elizabeth has either advised upon or argued at court:

• The basis on which a Claimant’s costs should be assessed and if “exceptional circumstances” applied pursuant to CPR 45.29J;
• In appeal against the decision of a Deputy District Judge in which the Claimant attempted to seek costs on the standard basis.  The Defendant argued the claim should have been processed through the portal and fixed costs applied;
• Wasted costs orders, including a hearing to show cause against a Claimant solicitor who (it was thought from the evidence at trial) had failed to advise his client correctly;
• When a Claimant’s Solicitor can leave the portal without incurring costs penalties;
• Part 36 offers, changes to their terms and variations;
• If the law of mistake applies to part 36 offers which were expressed incorrectly

Elizabeth specialises in Defendant credit hire and has represented insurance companies nation wide in fast track and multi-track trials. Elizabeth has an awareness and experience of the various arguments the different credit hire companies attempt to run. She can objectively assess the litigation risks of the case and provide specialist advice as to the prospects of success and is a strong negotiator. Elizabeth has drafted many extensive defences on the issue of credit hire. Elizabeth has vast experience in running technical arguments relating both to the Consumer Credit Act and Statutory Instruments such as the Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work Regulations 1998 ex turpi causa and illegality in respect of the agreements. Recently Elizabeth has had specific experience in the following:

• Defending Claimant’s applications to submit rebuttal evidence following the disclosure of the Defendant’s rates evidence;
• Defending the Defendant’s position regarding the link between period and impecuniosity;
• The law surrounding the interpretation and reliability of the Defendant’s rates evidence since Stevens v Equity Syndicate Management;
• Costs in credit hire claims; in particular whether QOCS applies;
• Advising on whether a particular credit hire agreement was exempt from the Consumer Credit Act

Elizabeth has a particular expertise in the area of HAVS/VWF cases due to the insight into the causation issues she has gained in the numerous solicitors’ negligence claims she has been involved on behalf of the miners whose VWF/HAVS claims were undervalued.

This year Elizabeth has successfully defended two appeals brought by Claimant’s in which the Claimant sought the courts permission in two NIHL claims to depart from the engineering evidence of the single joint expert and have their own expert evidence. This experience has provided Elizabeth with a contemporaneous an in-depth knowledge of the legal position regarding experts which is invaluable for interim applications for both medical experts and engineering evidence.

Elizabeth has also advised on the complex issues involved in Noise Induced Hearing Loss claims. Currently this area of Elizabeth’s practice has been heavily Defendant biased advising on limitation issues, breach of duty and causation. Elizabeth finds the medical issues which surround this work particularly interesting with an in depth understating of the issues involved having conducted many conferences with experts.

Elizabeth recently conducted a limitation trial on behalf of the Defendant, which the court refused to apply section 33 of the limitation act as, following cross examination the Claimant’s evidence was considered to be unreliable thereby causing the Defendant prejudice.

1. All of us present felt that Elizabeth’s down to earth manner made us feel at ease straight away, she had a firm grasp of the facts of the case and we feel her determined questioning of the claimant, revealing the inconsistencies and omissions within their witness statement lead to our successful conclusion - Goodwin Fox Limited.
2. What a refreshing change to find a Barrister not so full of their own self-importance but focused on the task in hand. Felt very comfortable after a few minutes into the initial briefing that we were being represented by the right barrister with a clear agenda.
3. Ms Jones was superb, clear concise analysis of the facts, presented in a professional manner to an excellent Judge on the day. Exposing all of the inconsistencies with the TP witness statements, realistically there could be only one conclusion.
4. Whilst we always felt the case was strong, without the expertise of Ms Jones it could have been a different result. Highly recommended.

Personal Injury Bar Association (PIBA); Professional Negligence Bar Association (PNBA).

Third Party Costs Order Success - 25th January 2018 Crashing Out' - an examination of the decision in Casey v Cartwright (2006); Solicitors Journal, 1 December 2006.

Credit Hire Low Velocity Imprant Claims Fraud and Dishonesty 'Trippers and Slippers' 'MIB claims' 'Employers' Liability Update 2006/2007' Mock Trials - Highway and RTA disputes

LLB (Hons), Nottingham Law School, CCH Company law prize [1999]