Simon continues to act in all areas of personal injury work, representing both claimants and defendants. His practice involves cases of multi-track value, frequently in excess of £300,000 to £500,000. He has acted in sexual assault claims with a value in excess of £1 million, and CICA claims (being determined under the pre-tariff schemes) with a value in excess of £5 million.
He is experienced in handling high value and complex claims involving multiple experts both in conference and at trial.
Simon’s technical ability sees him regularly retained on cases where jurisdiction is challenged, both on domestic and international matters. He also advises in cases involving claims of exaggeration, fraud and dishonesty mainly for defendant solicitors and insurers.
Re NJ: Simon assisted in the preparation of one of the few remaining pre-1990 CICA claims involving the infliction of a serious brain injury on the then infant claimant. Simon conducted several hearings against leading counsel and settled the provisional schedule. The claim recently settled in the region of £10 million.
PD v First MTR: Claim against occupier of railway station arising from accident when claimant sustained serious leg injuries when he fell between train and platform due to an excessive gap.
MAS v CMUH NHSFT: Represented the defendant Trust in a personal injury claim brought by an employee who sustained injury due to a defective chair. At trial, the judge accepted that the vast majority of the claimant’s symptoms could not be attributed to the accident. The claimant failed to beat the defendant’s Part 36 offer. Simon successfully argued that, in addition to the effects of QOCS, the costs orders in favour of each party should be offset and therefore significantly limiting the defendant’s financial outlay.
RLT v Durham CC and Staindrop PC: Represented the claimant in a personal injury claim arising from a fall on a defective pavement. The path ran between an area of common land and an old highway. Responsibility for the path was disputed by each defendant who had, in their previous guises, been in disagreement over the path since the late 1800s. Following detailed submissions considering parish records from 1870 onwards, the County Council accepted responsibility for the same and the claim was settled.
DC v Ministry of Justice: Represented the defendant prison service in a personal injury claim brought by a prisoner who claimed to have slipped and sustained a wrist fracture due to an overly polished floor. The trial was conduct via CVP, with each of the three prisoner witnesses, two prison officer witnesses, counsel, solicitors and judge joining separately. Following the claimant was found to be fundamentally dishonest and he was ordered to pay the defendant’s costs.