Tim specialises in personal injury litigation, undertaking cases for both claimants and defendants.  In addition to a busy court practice, Tim routinely advises and prepares pleadings in fast track and multi-track cases.  He also appears regularly in relation to costs disputes.

Road Traffic Accidents

Tim acts for claimants and defendants in RTA trials across the country.  He acts in fast and multi-track matters, including fatal accident claims.  Cases include an accident concerning a motorcyclist under the influence of alcohol, a child sustaining complex psychiatric injuries and a collision involving a young child being injured crossing the road.

Public, Product and Occupier’s Liability

Tim has a well-established public liability practice having acted for a number of local authorities and claimants in highways cases.  Tim regularly acts for claimants and defendants in occupier’s liability matters and he has experience of multi-party claims.  Cases include a claim for a cyclist who suffered a serious head injury and for a visitor to a rehabilitation centre who suffered extensive injuries after falling from a window.

Employer’s liability

Tim regularly advises and prepares pleadings in employer’s liability claims.  In particular, he has experience of cases involving manual handling and personal protective equipment.  Cases include acting for claimants and defendants in manual handling disputes within warehouses and for a claimant who contracted a skin condition following exposure to a dangerous substance.

Tim represents defendants across the region in claims involving dishonesty.  He has a keen interest in the forensic nature of such cases and has secured numerous findings of fundamental dishonesty, in respect of both CPR 44.16 and section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

Tim has acted on behalf of a variety of defendants including local authorities, bus companies and insurers of individual drivers.  Cases have included issues such as induced accidents, low velocity impact, fictitious injuries and exaggeration.  In addition to appearing at Court, Tim regularly drafts paperwork including defences and Part 18 questions.

Credit Hire

Tim has a well-established practice acting for defendants in credit hire claims.  He is well-versed in the current arguments in this field, including basic hire rates, need and impecuniosity.  Tim is happy to advise on paper or in conference.

Motor Fraud

Tim is a member of the fraud team and has a strong practice acting for defendants in low velocity impact claims and cases involving allegations of fraud.  Tim has successfully argued for a number of findings of fundamental dishonesty and has recently given a seminar to solicitors and insurance file handlers on fundamental dishonesty/section 57 CJCA 2015.

Tim was involved in complex clinical matters and in regulatory work prior to practising at the Bar.

Since joining the Bar, Tim has acted for claimants and defendants in a variety of clinical disputes including failures to diagnose, failed surgical procedures, unnecessary operations and death during admission.  Tim routinely drafts pleadings and advises on liability and quantum, both in conference and on paper.

Recent cases of interest include:

Diagnosis: Instructed on behalf of a Claimant in relation to a delay in diagnosing his stroke.  The Claimant attended a walk-in-centre promptly but there followed a series of delays, both at the WiC and at the hospital.  The Claimant was left with right hemianopia and psychological symptoms.  The claim involved interesting arguments as to causation and material contribution.

Unnecessary surgery: Instructed by the Defendant in a claim concerning an alleged negligent failure to undertake a diuretic renogram, and the undertaking of an unnecessary pyeloplasty.  Causation was complex because of the Claimant’s comorbidities and the likelihood of significant symptoms in any event.

Consent: Advised, to a conclusion, on a claim involving a failure to obtain adequate consent for a mesh implant procedure.  The causation arguments, relating to the consent and the mesh itself, were particularly contentious.

Surgery: Advised, to a conclusion, on a claim involving involving negligent breast surgery.  The claim also contained allegations regarding consent.

Tim regularly appears in inquests, both on private instructions and in his capacity as Junior Counsel to the Crown.  His inquest work generally involves multi-day hearings and, often, Article 2.  He has acted on behalf of various prisons in relation to deaths in custody.  Other recent instructions include an Article 2 matter arising from death on a mental health unit, accidents at work, road traffic accidents and clinical concerns.  Tim has experience of appearing for families of the deceased and for potential defendants to future actions.

Inquests:

Outstanding court advocacy skills and sensitive handling of witnesses both in and out of court, means that our team are in demand. Many have been involved in high profile cases and we are adept at handling media interest in cases.

We offer a continuity of representations from inquests through to any civil actions for damages arising post-inquest. This helps foster strong barrister-client relationships to ensure the best possible outcome.

We have expertise in inquests and public inquiries into deaths involving:

• Police, prison and immigration custody
• healthcare (hospital) and GP treatment
• psychiatric issues including those lacking capacity and or suffering from a mental disorder – occuring both in and outside psychiatric facilities
• road traffic accidents
• accidents at work, including industrial disease deaths
• military personnel
• high profile public interest cases
• jury-led inquests
• human rights issues
• local authorities and social services
• schools and other educational establishments

Tim has built an extensive practice representing clients on all aspects of employment law, in the ET and the EAT. He is instructed by claimants and respondents, and he routinely appears in tribunal on multi-day cases.  Tim is often instructed to advise and draft pleadings, and is happy to discuss potential cases pre-litigation.

Tim’s regular clients are in both the public sector (local authorities and through his work on the Treasury Panel) and the private sector (insurance firms and SMEs). He also accepts instructions on a direct-access basis.

Tim is a regular contributor to the employment website Emplaw Online.

EAT cases:

Kilburn v DVLA [EA-2021-000074DA]: Acted for the Respondent in its objection to the Claimant’s appeal against a registrar’s decision not to permit an extension of time to appeal the ET judgment.

Dimitriu v Testerworld [UKEAT/0088/19/00]: Successfully represented the Respondent in the Claimant’s appeal against the dismissal of her claim following non-attendance at the final hearing.

Chambers v Cerebra [UKEATPA/0231/17/LA]: Represented the Respondent in the Claimant’s appeal against the tribunal’s findings in relation to disability.  The Claimant’s claims had all been dismissed at tribunal.  The Claimant sought a finding of disability from an earlier date and a consequential overturning of the dismissal of her reasonable adjustments claim.

Malek v North Yorkshire County Council [UKEAT/0216/17/DA]: Successfully represented the Respondent in the Claimant’s appeal against the dismissal of his claim for failure to attend a resumed hearing.  The Claimant sought to overturn the tribunal’s case management decision.  Much turned on the interpretation of Rule 47 and whether the Claimant had been ‘represented at the hearing’ (his representative having telephoned into tribunal and sought an adjournment).

Walker-Smith v Perrys Motor Sales Limited [UKEATPA/0434 and 0442/17]: Represented the Respondent in this response and cross-appeal.  The Claimant’s appeal against the level of contributory fault was upheld but the Respondent successfully cross-appealed to limit losses to the notice period (the Claimant having handed in his resignation prior to his dismissal).

Appleby v (1) The Governing Body of Colborn Community Primary School (2) North Yorkshire County Council [UKEAT/0334/15/JOJ]: Successfully represented the Respondents in the Claimant’s appeal against the tribunal’s findings regarding the onset of disability, and the consequences thereof. The case involved complex issues including the nature and extent of mental impairments, constructive knowledge and reasonable adjustments.

“He will always ensure he is well prepared and can apply a strong knowledge of employment law to help advise on cases and during any advocacy needed. We would not hesitate to use Tim on any of our cases.” Chambers and Partners 2023

Credit Hire

Tim has a well-established practice acting for defendants in credit hire claims.  He is well-versed in the current arguments in this field, including basic hire rates and impecuniosity.  Tim is happy to advise on paper or in conference.

Tim regularly advises on credit hire cases involving:

• Core credit hire issues of need, rate and period.
• Arguments on illegality and unenforceability.
• Loss of profit or cost of capital / standing charge claims in respect of taxis and other commercial vehicles.
• Arguments over impecuniosity (and the adequacy of any pleadings or disclosure relating to impecuniosity).
• Arguments in relation to prestige vehicles, in particular the reasonableness of hiring a like for like substitute.
• Mitigation of loss and, in particular, the Claimant’s obligations in relation to own-party fully comprehensive insurance.
• Arguments on intervention, and the effectiveness of an insurer’s Copley letters.
• Arguments over the adequacy of basic hire rates evidence.
• Fraudulent and fundamentally dishonest credit hire and associated bent metal claims.
• Credit hire bicycles and motorcycles.
• Strike out applications.

Tim has acted for claimants and defendants in a wide range of serious injury claims and he routinely advises in conference and on paper. He is experienced in drafting schedules and negotiating settlements by way of JSMs and mediation. Recent cases of interest include a fatal accident in a military vehicle, a seven-figure sum for complex injuries caused in a head-on collision, and working with a leader on a multi-million pound brain injury claim.

Tim was recently praised in Chambers and Partners as being an excellent, nicely understated communicator. He prides himself on working collaboratively with those who instruct him and in building a good rapport with clients.

Chambers and Partners (2025) - Employment (Band 3) - "Tim is a first-rate advocate and great with clients." "Tim's advocacy skills are excellent - he knows when to press and when the point has been made. He is also very receptive to solicitors and communicates well with clients." "Tim provides sound advice and expert representation when instructed. He provides direct and reliable advice." "Always reliable and extremely helpful, Tim gets on with the job and will always steer calmly around obstacles. I always enjoy working with him."

The Legal 500 (2025) - Employment (Tier 3) - "Tim can be completely trusted to have diligently prepared for any Tribunal hearing which he is instructed upon. He is able to read the Tribunal room and keeps a cool head."

Chambers and Partners (2024) - Employment (Band 3) - "Tim carefully considers the points made as part of any case discussion. In Tribunal, Tim can be trusted to comprehensively deal with any employment claim on behalf of the client with sound advocacy skills and good levels of preparation." "I worked with him on a range of matters, including discrimination, unfair dismissal, and constructive dismissal. He is a very technically able advocate." "Tim is utterly reliable, unflappable and technically excellent."

Chambers and Partners (2023) - Employment (Band 3) - "Tim Wilkinson's work in the employment law field includes complex and sensitive claims of discrimination and whistle-blowing detriment. He draws praise as an incisive and approachable barrister."

Chambers and Partners (2022) - Employment (Band 2) - "He is very knowledgeable about employment matters and is an excellent, nicely understated communicator." "He has a real knack for putting clients at ease, and he cuts through all of the nonsense."

Employment EAT:

Kilburn v DVLA [EA-2021-000074DA]: Acted for the Respondent in its objection to the Claimant's appeal against a registrar's decision not to permit an extension of time to appeal the ET judgment. 

Dimitriu v Testerworld [UKEAT/0088/19/00]: Successfully represented the Respondent in the Claimant's appeal against the dismissal of her claim following non-attendance at the final hearing.

Chambers v Cerebra [UKEATPA/0231/17/LA]: Represented the Respondent in the Claimant’s appeal against the tribunal’s findings in relation to disability.  The Claimant’s claims had all been dismissed at tribunal.  The Claimant sought a finding of disability from an earlier date and a consequential overturning of the dismissal of her reasonable adjustments claim.

Malek v North Yorkshire County Council [UKEAT/0216/17/DA]: Successfully represented the Respondent in the Claimant’s appeal against the dismissal of his claim for failure to attend a resumed hearing.  The Claimant sought to overturn the tribunal’s case management decision.  Much turned on the interpretation of Rule 47 and whether the Claimant had been ‘represented at the hearing’ (his representative having telephoned into tribunal and sought an adjournment).

Walker-Smith v Perrys Motor Sales Limited [UKEATPA/0434 and 0442/17]: Represented the Respondent in this response and cross-appeal.  The Claimant’s appeal against the level of contributory fault was upheld but the Respondent successfully cross-appealed to limit losses to the notice period (the Claimant having handed in his resignation prior to his dismissal).

Appleby v (1) The Governing Body of Colborn Community Primary School (2) North Yorkshire County Council [UKEAT/0334/15/JOJ]: Successfully represented the Respondents in the Claimant’s appeal against the tribunal’s findings regarding the onset of disability, and the consequences thereof. The case involved complex issues including the nature and extent of mental impairments, constructive knowledge and reasonable adjustments.

ET cases of interest

Successfully represented a claimant in a two-week claim involving public interest disclosures and a lengthy course of detrimental treatment.  

Represented the respondent in a multi-day claim concerning alleged unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.  The claim involved whole-scale criticism of the Respondent's security systems and working practices which, allegedly, compromised the claimant's safety and led to her resignation.  

Acted for the respondent in a claim that ran for several years, involving over fifty allegations of disability discrimination and a Schedule of Loss exceeding £1m.  The claim involved complex issues as to disability and, in particular, the 'somethings' that were alleged to arise from the disability.  

Tribunal: Discrimination

JK v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: represented the Claimant in this multi-day claim of disability discrimination and unfair dismissal, following her dismissal for capability reasons. Represented the Claimant at the separate liability and remedies hearings. Claim for unfair and wrongful dismissal and perceived disability discrimination after the Claimant was dismissed for allegedly attending work under the influence of alcohol. Case of alleged sex discrimination and/or discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy and maternity.

Tribunal Unfair Dismissal:

Redundancy: represented a large insurance firm in a multi-day claim of unfair dismissal following redundancy. The two claimants alleged, amongst other things, that the process was pre-determined and biased. Claim of constructive unfair dismissal following a TUPE transfer and an alleged demotion/removal of duties. Case concerning allegations of unfair and wrongful dismissal following dismissal for attendance at work under the influence of drugs.  

Personal Injury/Clinical Negligence

Brain Injury: Settled a multi-million pound case involving a young man who sustained a brain injury in a road traffic accident.  His future earnings capacity was severely affected and his care needs were significant.

Brain Injury: Settled a claim, for £1m, involving a traumatic brain injury following a head-on collision.

Employer's Liability: Settled, at JSM, a claim involving a public servant who had been assaulted whilst at work.  The injuries were physical and psychological and the claim relating to loss of earnings, in particular, was significant.  The claim was pleaded in excess of £1.5m.

Consent: Advised, to a conclusion, on a claim involving a failure to obtain adequate consent for a mesh impant procedure.  The causation arguments, relating to the consent and the mesh itself, were particularly contentious. Surgery: Advised, to a conclusion, on a claim involving involving negligent breast surgery.  The claim also contained allegations regarding consent.

Fraud/Fundamental Dishonesty

CPR 44.16 Secured a finding of fundamental dishonesty in a claim arising from a minor road traffic accident.  The trial Judge found that the Claimant had intentionally misled the medical expert by omitting to disclose previous neck symptoms (the Claimant having admitted in cross-examination to misleading the expert).  The Judge's conclusion was that the Claimant only admitted to certain aspects of her claim when cornered during oral evidence.  He held that she had been dishonest in relation to all of her injuries. Acted for a defendant bus company.  The Claimant had been a passenger on the bus but gave poor evidence in relation to the accident circumstances and her symptomology.  The trial Judge concluded that the Claimant had been dishonest, and disapplied QOCS as a conseqence.

Acted on behalf of a defendant who was alleged to have reversed into the claimant before driving off.  There were a number of inconsistencies in the Claimant's evidence, in terms of both the accident and the alleged injuries.  He failed to produce his two passengers and friends as witnesses, and there was a lack of contemporaneous or consistent medical evidence.  The Judge dismissed the claim and disapplied QOCS. Section 57 CJCA 2015

Defended a claim from a claimant who alleged he had been struck by a bus emerging from a bus stop.  There was little by way of visible damage.  The Judge accepted that there had been a collision, at low velocity, and that the Claimant had sustained some injury.  Following cross-examination, the Judge found that the Claimant had failed to give a coherent account of the aftermath.  He had 'exaggerated his claim, and significantly so', particularly in relation to his claim for loss of earnings.  The Judge accepted the submission that Section 57 applied and dismissed the claim, with costs.

Regular contributor to Emplaw Online - https://www.emplaw.co.uk/. Tim has also given seminars in-house and to a wider audience; please contact the clerks with enquiries.

LLB (Hons) Manchester University (2002-2005), BVC Manchester Metropolitan (2005-2006)