David Taylor

David Taylor colour

Email: clerk@stjohnsbuildings.co.uk

Phone: 0151 243 6000

Year of call: 1998

Book Barrister

David is regularly instructed in the areas of Personal Injury and Insurance Litigation on circuit and nationally. Having spent two years in house with two prominent Solicitors firms, he joined Chambers and continued to expand his specialist knowledge.

David is continuing to expand his areas of expertise and practice into the Public Law arena, especially for Local Authority clients.

Expertise

  • Personal Injury

    David is fortunate to have a wide and varied practice both as an advocate and as an advisor. As his experience has grown so has the complexity of the work he is entrusted to handle. David is regularly instructed in high value, high complexity and catastrophic injury cases both at interlocutory level and to trial. The values of such cases regularly exceed £1m.

    David has experience of dealing with historic child abuse cases especially in the CICAP.

    David is continuing to expand his areas of expertise and his practice into areas of Public Law especially for Local Authority clients.

    Reported cases

    Hinds v Liverpool City Council et al [2008] EWHC 665 (QB)

    A claim that amounted to an attempt to re-litigate old proceedings for the simple reason that the claimant disagreed with their original outcome was a course of action that could not be tolerated.

    Relevant Memberships

    PIBA

    Book BarristerBack to top
  • Regulatory

    David is especially interested in cases where there is a cross over between legal disciplines, such as in the reported case of Hinds v Liverpool City Council, where a Family case required satellite litigation within the civil court’s jurisdiction.

    Areas involving a breach of human rights and Judicial Review are also of interest.

    Reported cases

    Hinds v Liverpool City Council et al [2008] EWHC 665 (QB)

    A claim that amounted to an attempt to re-litigate old proceedings for the simple reason that the claimant disagreed with their original outcome was a course of action that could not be tolerated.

    Book BarristerBack to top