Jamie Gamble

Jamie practices exclusively in the areas of personal injury and clinical negligence. He is ranked as a tier one leading junior for personal injury and clinical negligence (Midlands) in the 2016 edition of the Legal 500, which states that he is “a great all-round barrister”. He is also one of only 31 junior barristers in the country to be approved by the Spinal Injuries Association for catastrophic injury work.

Much of his work is now of substantial value (acting with or without a leader) and includes claims of the utmost severity and death.

Jamie has significant experience of all areas of personal injury work, including accidents at work, public liability claims, road traffic accidents (including claims against the Motor Insurers’ Bureau), industrial disease, CICA claims, and claims involving allegations of fraud.

Recent and ongoing cases that Jamie has been involved in have included: (i) cases of severe brain injury, including an ongoing case with a potential value in excess of £3 million and Re M (2014), a CICA claim where an award of £365,000 was obtained; (ii) Re G (2016), negligent abdominal surgery, settled for in excess of £500,000; (iii) Re B (2016), death caused by infection and necrotising fasciitis, settled for £425,000; (iv) Re A (2014), fatal road traffic case settled for £265,000; and (v) B v P (2013), above knee amputation following a motorcycle accident, settled for £1.6 million.

Jamie also regularly lectures to solicitor and insurer clients on legal developments and civil procedure.

Practice Area

Panel

  • Q&A Panel

Qualified Year

  • 1999

Membership

  • PIBA
  • AvMA

Education

  • Law (Selwyn College, Cambridge University)
  • BVC (Inns of Court School of Law)
  • MA (Cantab)

2 Contributions by Jamie Gamble

EL Multi-track: Adjourned Amend Defence/Part 18—Witness Evidence, Breach and Extension Refusal
Q&As
EL Multi-track: Adjourned Amend Defence/Part 18—Witness Evidence, Breach and Extension Refusal
At the heart of the query lies the status of a party who does not adhere to a court direction, yet has lodged an application to extend the time for compliance before the expiry of the deadline attached to that direction. On the scenario set out, the claimant will be in breach of the court order concerning the exchange of witness statements in two weeks’ time, because that order will not have been varied before the deadline for compliance under that order...
PI & Clinical Negligence
Personal injury: D2 costs recovery from D1 denying liability
Q&As
Personal injury: D2 costs recovery from D1 denying liability
When a defendant defeats a claim, the default position is that the claimant must meet the defendant’s legal costs arising from the claim. Yet CPR 44.2(1)(a) gives the court freedom to decide if, and by whom, costs should be paid. In proceedings with multiple defendants, that discretion allows the court to order an unsuccessful co-defendant, instead of the claimant, to bear the successful defendant’s costs in such circumstances as appropriate...
PI & Clinical Negligence
Expert page AD
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.