Charlotte has a strong personal injury practice, regularly representing both Claimants and Defendants. She has experience of:
• Road traffic accidents, including issues surrounding fundamental dishonesty and staged collisions,
- Accidents at work,
- Occupiers' Liability Act claims,
- Defective Premises Act claims,
- Fatal Accidents/1934 Act claims,
- Public liability,
- Quantum assessments for adults, children and protected parties,
- Criminal Injuries Compensation appeals,
- Detailed Assessment for personal injury matters, and
Charlotte regularly advises on issues of liability and quantum on paper and in conference. She is happy to consider matters on a Conditional Fee basis where appropriate.
Charlotte has particular experience of acting in claims where diminution in value of a damaged vehicle is claimed over and above the cost of repair. Arguments include as to the quality of expert evidence adduced in support of the claim, the nature of the vehicle involved and the recoverability by a Claimant when the vehicle was subject to a hire purchase agreement.
Charlotte was excellent. Not only was she very well prepared and clearly on top of everything but she was clear, calm and concise throughout which made the Judge's job relatively easy. At one point the Judge was not overly impressed with having to decipher what the Claimants counsel was saying but there were no such issues with Charlotte's submissions.
Particularly impressive was the late arrival of a case authority from the Claimant's counsel. Not only did Charlotte devour this in double quick time but she then seamlessly relied on the findings of fact in the case to support the conclusion that it actually favoured our position not the Claimants!!
I could not have wanted better Counsel on the day so am very glad that she was available. The claimant's case was dismissed in full with a finding of no contributory negligence on my part.’
Defendant, RTA case February 2017.
M (A Child) v Simkiss:
Acting for the Claimant child who was hit by a car where there were allegations she had run into the road and so had caused the accident
Acting for a Claimant who suffered significant head injuries in an RTA and wished to accept a settlement, but despite medical evidence to the contrary, the Defendant contended he lacked capacity to do so. The Judge agreed that the Claimant had capacity and was free to accept a settlement in whatever sum he chose.
Salathiel & Salathiel v Red and White Bus Services:
Acted for 2 Claimants who successfully claimed for injuries when the Defendant had argued that the collision was a Low Velocity Impact and as such no injury could have been caused.
Lex Autolease v Tweddle (Lawtel Document AC0145165)
Acted for the Defendant in a collision where liability was admitted and damages for the cost of repair had been paid. Successfully argued that the Claimant’s evidence that they had suffered a diminution in value of the vehicle over and above the cost of repairs was inadequate to prove any loss was in fact suffered.
D (A Child v M)
Quantum for hearing loss of 10,000 in an RTA
Bradley v Mitchell
Addresses whether Stage 3 costs are payable where Stage 2 has ended, but Stage 3 pack not filed at court and the matter settles under the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents
'Careless Caring?' APIL
On Care Home negligence
Tolley's Health and Safety Handbook