Malcolm Duthie specialises in all aspects of high-value personal injury and clinical negligence litigation, involving catastrophic and serious injuries and those injuries resulting in death.
Malcolm is recognised as a leading senior junior and represents both Claimants and Defendants nationally.
Cases in which he has appeared are reported and referred to in textbooks as being cases of importance. He provides representation at Inquests.
Recognised as a leading senior junior in his field, Malcolm specialises in all aspects of high-value personal injury litigation involving catastrophic and serious injuries and those injuiries resulting in death.
He represents both Claimants and Defendants in cases involving employer’s and public liability, road traffic accidents (single or multiple collision and claims involving the MIB), accidents abroad, fatal accident claims and sporting accidents. He also appears at Inquests and CICA appeals.
He has substantial experience in catastrophic injury claims including head and brain injuries affecting adults and children; proceedings on behalf of children and protected parties; Mental Capacity Act issues; spinal injuries including paraplegia and tetraplegia; severe orthopaedic injuries (fractures and soft tissue); internal organ injuries; amputation of upper and/or lower limbs and digits; scarring, burns, electric shock and gross disfigurement; and psychiatric injury (both primary and secondary victim claims).
Cases also include rare but recognised conditions for example fibromyalgia, pain amplification and chronic fatigue syndromes, Munchausen’s, conversion and functional neurological disorders and complications for example CRPS, MRSA, infections, compartment syndrome, vascular issues including DVT and occlusion.
Malcolm is recognised as a leading junior in his field, cases in which he has appeared have been referred to in textbooks, and he has been successful in the Court of Appeal.
Professional recommendations appear below but examples of unsolicited communication directly from clients include:
“My husband and I are beyond delighted with the result and feel extremely grateful that our financial future is now safe. Your work in the negotiations was absolutely brilliant” (Subtle brain injury claim GBP 1.5m)
“a small token of immense appreciation for all of your help with regards Terry’s accident. You were an
absolute star. Such a credit to your profession” (Claimant fell into vat of molten zinc).
Cases in which he has appeared are reported and referred to in textbooks (examples appear in brackets below) concerning employer’s (Milroy v BT [2015]) and public liability (Pace v Swansea CCC [2007]); road traffic accidents (single or multiple collision and claims involving the MIB) (Powell v Auden [2009]); Deighton v Collett [2016]); accidents abroad, fatal accident claims, product liability (Baker v KTM [2017] CA); animals (Cooke v Jackson [1999]) and sporting accidents (Wattleworth v Goodwood [2004]; Green v Sunset & Vine [2009]; Corbett v Cumbria Kart [2013]). Inquests [R v- HM Assistant Coroner for Camarthenshire and Pembrokeshire [2022].
road traffic accident in which pedestrian C as a child was knocked down sustaining a very severe brain injury. Case originally pleaded at £8m but settled for less than £2.9m (gross) almost 20 years after the accident. JSM failed to achieve settlement which was achieved at mediation. Settlement and anonymity order approved by Judge [instructed by DWF].
Road traffic accident C pedestrian. Multiple orthopaedic injuries of utmost severity. C profoundly and permanently affected by his injuries. Complex medical and quantum issues. Case settled at JSM for in excess of £1m.
professional rally driver and successful entrepreneur injured during rally refuelling operation when petrol ignited, the car became engulfed in flames and C sustained severe burn injuries. At hospital in Belgium, he remained in an induced coma for three weeks, underwent skin grafting and was then repatriated for specialist treatment at Sheffield. Disfiguring scarring, vocal cord paralysis and PTSD. Succeeded on behalf of C at the High Court liability trial. National press coverage including: Daily Mail Online and Refuelling mishap turned rally car into a fireball, businessman claims – The Times
Claimant pedestrian knocked down by the Defendant’s motorcar being trapped under the wheels before being extracted by emergency services. Very severe and life changing injuries. Pleaded case in excess of £3m. Settlement achieved after JSM and disclosure of video surveillance.
A coroner’s decision that ECHR art.2 did not require an investigation into the circumstances of the death of a 16-year-old girl pursuant to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 Pt 1 s.5(2), on the basis that a local authority had not fallen short of its responsibilities to accommodate her under the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 s.76 was quashed, as the coroner had erred in his assessment of the local authority’s duty pursuant to s.76.
RTA- motorcyclist filtering
A judge had been entitled to find that there must have been a defect in a two-year-old, fully serviced motorcycle which caused the brakes to seize resulting in personal injury to the claimant. The claimant was not required to identity the specific defect to successfully bring a claim under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
A person injured in a road traffic accident was entitled to continue a personal injury claim against the defendant, despite the fact that another party had already litigated the case. The person injured had not been privy to the proceedings brought by the original claimant as there had been no previous relationship between them, and allowing the claim to continue was not an abuse of process.
A telecommunications company
was liable for injuries sustained by one of its engineers who came into contact with a high voltage power
cable while operating a mobile elevated work platform to access a high-level telephone line. The company
had trained its engineer, but was in breach of statutory duty by communicating significant changes only by
updating electronic documents, rather than to the relevant employees in person, and by providing cursory
follow-up training alongside other unconnected training, which prevented the changes from being properly
understood or absorbed.
refusal of court o grant relief to a Defendant who filed a costs budget late.
A motorcyclist’s failure to move further to his nearside on seeing an oncoming motorcycle coming round a bend in a road was due to a combination of his inadequate lookout and his inexperience of the road. The ensuing emergency braking which caused him to skid into the approaching motorcyclist’s path was, therefore, his own fault and he was liable in damages to the other injured person.
Ice on the highway – first decided case on duties under S41 (1A) Highways Act 1980
the claimant, who was injured by a dog whilst walking in a park, appealed against the dismissal of her claim in negligence against the owner of the dog. The claimant argued that, when considering whether liability attached to the defendant who had been cycling ahead of her dog, the judge had applied too narrow a test. By being on her bicycle, the defendant had failed to exercise proper control over her dog and had created a potential hazard to pedestrians.
A motor racing club and the organiser of a moped racing event had failed to discharge their duty of care for the safety of competitors when allowing an ambulance to be positioned behind an inadequate tyre barrier at the event. Their breaches were causative of the claimant motorcycle rider’s head injuries when he crashed through the barrier and hit the ambulance.
A judge had been entitled to find on the evidence before him that a racing car driver had simply made an error of judgment which had caused an accident during a race, and that the placing of a “kerb cam” at the point on the track where the accident had occurred was not materially causative of the accident in the sense that the accident would not have happened but for the camera.
A motor sports association owed a duty of care to a driver on a racing circuit where it voluntarily adopted an advisory role in respect of the circuit and safety barriers; however, that duty and the common duty of care owed by the circuit proprietors were not breached where it was not proved that the structure of the safety barrier was inappropriate or causative of the fatal injuries on the balance of probabilities.
acted on behalf of the Goodwood Motor Racing Circuit, brought by widow of Deceased whose Austin Healey collided with the circuit’s tyre barrier
accident at Barn Corner, Cadwell Park during Aprilla RS 250 Championship. The Claimant struck a recticel foam barrier and rebounded onto the track
accident at Brands Hatch when a Lotus sports car overturned during a towing operation
Corporate activity day quad bike accident.
BSMA Team event. Claimant riding 250cc motorcycle. Trackside rope became entangled within rear wheel. Motorcycle halted in mid-air. Fractured spine.
corporate activity day quad bike accident
test day, older boy on larger motorcycle collided with younger less experienced Claimant
Maserati struck road camera at Woodcote Corner during Revival Meeting. Accident caused by driving of the Claimant.
moto cross incident when Claimant struck by a following bike. Fractured spine.
corporate day. C. injured driving a “Snoo-kart”. Issue of responsibilites of organiser versus employer.
collision between side-car outfit and ambulance, with Graham Eklund QC.
banger race collision. Claim discontinued shortly before trial. Issues with regards to costs and unreasonable conduct ongoing.
marshal struck by rally car
Banger race at Arena Essex Raceway. C driver alleged he was “followed in” and struck fence. C discontinued after day 1 of trial.
Examples of Inquests in which Malcolm has been instructed which attracted national and/or local, publicity in the matters of:
school pupil. Allegations of online bullying. [Haverfordwest]
A coroner’s decision that ECHR art.2 did not require an investigation into the circumstances of the death of a 16-year-old girl pursuant to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 Pt 1 s.5(2), on the basis that a local authority had not fallen short of its responsibilities to accommodate her under the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 s.76 was quashed, as the coroner had erred in his assessment of the local authority’s duty pursuant to s.76.
teenager placed in temporary foster care [Haverfordwest].
voluntary mental health patient [Nottingham]
teenager placed with foster parents. [Milford Haven]
teenager placed with foster carers [Peterborough]
death in Sauna at leisure centre [Gravesend]
legal executive drowned at Swansea.
collision with ambulance on allegedly defective road (Powys).
refuse operative crushed by roller shutter door (Cardiff)
Malcolm has considerable experience of clinical negligence claims in a wide variety of fields including:
failure to diagnose and treat epidural abscess causing damage to spinal cord with resulting paraplegia, neurological deficit in the lower part of his body and urological and bowel dysfunction. Issues with regards to life expectancy. PPO considered but lump sum settlement achieved at JSM: £1.85m.
failure to diagnose cauda equina syndrome and perform urgent decompression and discectomy surgery and thereafter failure to diagnose and treat infective discitis by appropriate antibiotics. Settlement achieved at JSM: £750,000
delay in ambulance in attending Claimant with brain haemorrhage and then a failure to convey C to an appropriate hospital with neurosurgery facilities.
failure to diagnose colloid cyst with severe hydrocephalus and refer for emergency treatment leading to cardiac arrest and death. Settlement of £1.375m approved by Ritchie J.
substandard care and treatment during laparoscopic nephrectomy, resulting in stoma and multiple severe hernias, one in particular being so large that the Claimant is barely able to move or mobilise leaving her very isolated and in need of outside care and assistance. Devastating effect upon an elderly lady. Settlement achieved.
failure to diagnose and treat pulmonary embolism and DVT casusing death.
Malcolm Duthie recently represented Mr Steve Perez, the Claimant [C] at trial at the High Court in London, before Mr Charles Bagot KC, sitting as…
No5 Barristers’ Chambers is sponsoring a solicitors’ training day organised by Spinal Injuries Association, a national charity that supports anyone affected by spinal cord injury. The…
"Malcolm is a commanding and imaginative advocate with a great knowledge of the law. He is extremely capable on his feet and inspires confidence in clients and easily builds an amiable rapport."
"Malcolm Duthie is an excellent advocate and is really passionate for his clients."
"Malcolm is extremely personable and good on his feet."
"Malcolm is excellent at pulling.....witnesses apart." "Malcolm is technically brilliant."
"The ‘amazing advocate’.....". "Malcolm is a very experienced, passionate and talented advocate. He puts his all into his cases and on behalf of his clients."
"Malcolm is an incredibly able lawyer who is superb at handling the most complex of issues." "He is brilliant with challenging cases and has fantastic attention to detail."
"Malcolm is very good with both clients and experts and is able to drill into the detail of the case and address the central issues in a way that all clients can understand. His advocacy is meticulous in its preparation and delivery. He consistently performs well in complex negotiations and does not get drawn into needless posturing, always remaining calm and measured when putting the client’s case. He is tenacious and ensures the best possible outcomes."
"He has a great eye for detail and inspires confidence." "Very intelligent and always extremely well prepared."
"Malcolm is very astute. He grasps incredibly complex issues and is good at explaining these to clients. Nothing seems to faze him. He is not afraid to run tricky cases and his depth of knowledge and approachable manner make him a valued asset to any legal team."
"Very thorough and astute." "He is absolutely on the ball, takes no nonsense and delivers great results."
"Extremely persistent on behalf of clients, always pushing for the best outcome."
"An excellent advocate; he is persuasive in court and expresses himself very well on paper. He clearly has a very sharp mind." "Impeccably prepared and a real fighter, so he’s good to have on your side in a contested issue." "He is methodical and gets to grips with the issues of the case quickly."
"Tenacious in court and at mediation."
"He is very intelligent, articulate and a skilled advocate. He grasps complex issues well and deals with the more challenging clients with considerable diplomacy."
"His broad practice includes industrial disease, catastrophic injuries and public liability claims."
Malcolm Duthie recently represented Mr Steve Perez, the Claimant [C] at trial at the High Court in London, before Mr Charles Bagot KC, sitting as…
No5 Barristers’ Chambers is sponsoring a solicitors’ training day organised by Spinal Injuries Association, a national charity that supports anyone affected by spinal cord injury. The…
