Shakespeare -v- Martin [2018] EWHC 2114 (QB)
RTA- motorcyclist filtering
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].
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 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.
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:
collision with ambulance on allegedly defective road (Powys).
refuse operative crushed by roller shutter door (Cardiff)
death in Sauna at leisure centre [Gravesend]
teenager placed with foster carers [Peterborough]
voluntary mental health patient [Nottingham]
teenager placed with foster parents. [Milford Haven]
teenager placed in temporary foster care [Haverfordwest].
Malcolm has considerable experience of clinical negligence claims in a wide variety of fields including:
delay in ambulance in attending Claimant woth brain haemorraghe and then a failour to convey C to an appropriate hospital with neurosurgery facilities.
substandard care and treatment during laparscopic nephrectomy, resulting in stoma and multiple severe hernias.
failure to diagnose and treat pulmonary embolism and DVT casusing death.
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…
Uncategorised
An inquest at Nottingham Coroner’s Court heard this week that Carol Vaughan, 61, who was an informal patient at Millbrook Mental Health Unit in Nottinghamshire,…
"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."
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…
Uncategorised
An inquest at Nottingham Coroner’s Court heard this week that Carol Vaughan, 61, who was an informal patient at Millbrook Mental Health Unit in Nottinghamshire,…
