Andrew Wilson
Andrew has more than 25 years’ experience of working in the fields of personal injury and occupational disease litigation, acting for both claimants and defendants. He trained at L Bingham & Co, gaining early experience in a number of important high profile claims involving the MIB. During the 1990s Andrew worked at Hextalls and then Kennedys, predominantly for defendants across a range of motor, employers’ liability and public liability matters many of which involved serious injuries or death. More recently, he has dealt with cases for claimants who have suffered serious injuries or occupational disease. He was a partner in a large specialist practice. He has provided seminars to solicitors and other legal professionals both for an external conference company and in house on the workings of the Civil Procedure Rules in the context of personal injury claims, amongst other subjects.
He has now set up his own legal consultancy, providing advice and support to solicitors, particularly a specialist London practice, in connection with fatal accidents and very serious injury cases such as brain injury, mostly in the High Court. He has continued to develop his education and training activities, providing seminars and contributing articles and commentaries to legal information services.
Since his training, Andrew has retained a particular interest in issues of motor indemnity and the operation of the Road Traffic Act and Article 75.
Practice Areas
Panels
- Consulting Editorial Board
- Contributing Author
- Q&A Panel
39 Contributions by Andrew Wilson
PRACTICE NOTES
Assumption of Responsibility and Non-delegable Duty in Negligence: Public Authorities, Hazardous Activities, Householders and Surveyors
In most situations, practitioners will have little trouble pinpointing an individual or organisation that owed the claimant a duty of care and who, on the face of it, is amenable to suit. Where liability is contested, the dispute typically concerns not the presence of a duty, but whether the defendant has breached that duty. For further guidance, see Practice Notes: Duty of care in personal injury claims and Breach of the duty of care in personal injury claims. There are, however, occasions when the practitioner must grapple with whether the proposed defendant owed any duty of care at all. This Practice Note seeks to draw out broad principles from the case law, while heeding Lady Hale’s caution in the Supreme Court in Woodland v Essex County Council: judges’ explanations for their decisions should not be read as if they were statutory wording, setting rules in stone and preventing further principled development of the duty of care...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Catastrophic Injury Claims from Pre-Action to Settlement: Counsel, Experts, Rehabilitation, Case Management, Interim and Periodical Payments, and Part 36 (England and Wales)
This Practice Note outlines the key issues and steps to address, preferably with counsel’s input. A vital early consideration is the selection of counsel.
Selection of specialist counsel
In cases of severe injury, counsel’s role is pivotal, and a solicitor will often wish to instruct an experienced junior earlier than would typically happen in more modest claims. The solicitor will want counsel closely engaged in framing the claim and in defining the approach and strategy to be pursued. It is critical that the barrister chosen is skilled and experienced in this work. Equally, it matters that they are approachable and willing to be consulted regularly. The individual appointed should be someone with whom not only the instructing solicitor, but also the claimant and family, will feel at ease. In many matters, counsel will be invited to a conference at the claimant’s home, and a strong rapport between counsel and the claimant (and family) is very important. As counsel will be required to advise on litigation strategy, it will often be desirable to instruct them at an early stage. Early instruction enables counsel to shape the case from the outset, advise on strategy, attend home conferences, and build rapport with family...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Catastrophic personal injury claims in England and Wales: early case management, liability, limitation, funding and rehabilitation under the Rehabilitation Code 2015 and Serious Injury Guide
Definition of a catastrophic injury
It is often the case that practitioners reserve the label ‘catastrophic’ for only the gravest injuries, sometimes confining it to harm so serious that the injured person requires continuous, 24‑hour care. These Practice Notes, together with the related Practice Notes in the catastrophic claims subtopic, do not adopt so narrow or overly precise a definition or classification. Instead, they address injuries that will permanently alter a claimant’s life, frequently stripping them of the ability to live wholly independently and curtailing, or even removing, their capacity to work. Where the repercussions of the accident and ensuing disability are so fundamental, the quantum of any award secured will have a pronounced effect on the quality of life the claimant—and very often their family—is able to enjoy.
Nature of the role of the claimant’s solicitor
In a catastrophic injury case, the claimant’s solicitor may receive their first instructions whilst the claimant remains hospitalised, and everyday domestic life, for the time being, is effectively on hold...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Catastrophic personal injury: heads of claim, evidential requirements and valuation (Ogden, care, accommodation, medical expenses, vehicles, aids, Court of Protection fees), with 2025 discount rate update
On 2 December 2024, the Lord Chancellor confirmed a change to a positive discount rate of 0.5%, with the new rate taking effect from 11 January 2025. Under Schedule A1 to the Damages Act 1996, later reviews must be conducted within five years of the conclusion of the last review; accordingly, the next review must commence on or before 2 December 2029. This Practice Note sets out the potential heads of claim in a case of severe injury and, where appropriate, offers limited guidance...
General damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity
Damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity are to be assessed in the customary fashion, with reference to the Judicial College Guidelines and relevant authorities. In cases of catastrophic brain injury, issues can arise regarding the claimant’s consciousness and therefore their perception of pain. It remains the case that an award for pain and suffering depends upon the claimant’s awareness of that suffering, as it is a subjective loss. For further guidance on valuing serious brain injury claims, see Practice Note: Valuing serious brain injury claims. The established approach to valuation continues to apply...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
CPR Part 36 in PI and clinical negligence: practical guidance on offers, withdrawals, acceptance, rejection and costs, post‑2023 fixed recoverable costs reforms (England and Wales)
Part 36
From 1 October 2023, the CPR were revised to broaden the scope of fixed recoverable costs. As a consequence, Part 36 now extends to claims on the fast track and the intermediate track, and to noise‑induced hearing loss claims allocated to the fast track, with fixed costs applying where:
the cause of action arises on or after 1 October 2023; or
in disease claims, no letter of claim was sent before 1 October 2023
The pre‑1 October 2023 iteration of CPR 36 (no longer maintained within the CPR) can be accessed here:
For guidance on the particular rules applicable to claims falling within the fixed costs regime—including cases pursued under the Pre‑Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents, the Pre‑Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury (Employers’ Liability and Public Liability) Claims, or the Pre‑Action Protocol for Resolution of Package Travel Claims—see Practice Note: Fixed costs in PI claims—consequential amendments to Part 36 offers to settle...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
CPR Part 36 offers in personal injury: pre‑6 April 2015 rules, requirements, costs consequences and transitional provisions (England and Wales) [Archived]
ARCHIVED:
This Practice Note is archived and no longer updated. It is retained solely for historical context, as it outlines CPR Part 36 as it stood before 6 April 2015.
If you have received, or are proposing, a Part 36 offer on or after 6 April 2015, you should consult the CPR 36 currently in force together with the relevant Practice Notes and Precedents. See Practice Note: Part 36 offers in PI and clinical negligence claims and Part 36 offers—overview.
Where a Part 36 offer was made or received before 6 April 2015, the pre‑6 April 2015 Part 36 regime continues to apply. A copy of the pre‑6 April 2015 Part 36 rules can be accessed here:
If a Part 36 offer predates 6 April 2015 but any trial of part of the claim, or any issue within it, is listed to begin on or after 6 April 2015, you will need to consider the new CPR 36 in relation to acceptance, disclosure, and definitions...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Credit hire in England and Wales: enforceability and cancellation, proving need and mitigation (including courtesy offers), and QOCS non-party costs exposure for claimants and credit hire companies
Enforceability of contracts
Certain credit hire contracts have been open to challenge as unenforceable when the hire company has not adhered to specific rules, whether relating to the contract’s terms or required formal steps. If a contract is unenforceable against the hirer, the consequence is that the hirer is treated as having sustained no loss and cannot recover.
Consumer Credit Act and exempt agreements
The House of Lords in Dimond v Lovell confirmed that these hire arrangements amount to credit agreements and fall within the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974), as modified by the Consumer Credit Act 2006, unless their terms satisfy the criteria for exemption. Where an agreement is not exempt and so is regulated, it will probably be classed as improperly executed under CCA 1974, s 61(1)(a), because it omits the ‘total cash price for the services’ at that point. However, the Court of Appeal in Clark v Tull (trading as Ardington Electrical Services) held that where the contract calls for no more than four payments and restricts the hire term to a maximum of 12 months, it...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Credit hire in road traffic claims: enforceability, evidence on need, impecuniosity and rates, quantum, and CPR pleading and procedure (England and Wales)
Replacement vehicles and hire generally
Where a motorist’s car has been harmed in a collision to such an extent that it demands repair or outright replacement, they will quite possibly need a stand‑in vehicle for day‑to‑day use. Some motorists may, perhaps through their own insurance policy, have access to a courtesy car for the spell when their vehicle is unavailable to them. However, many drivers will not enjoy that facility and will instead consider hiring an alternative vehicle to bridge the gap. This is especially so where no courtesy car is offered. Conventional vehicle hire will, as a rule, require the hirer to settle the full rental charges when the hire period ends, commonly after paying a sizeable deposit up front in practice. If the substitute car is required for a prolonged period, the cumulative hire charges can become considerable. A driver, particularly if wholly innocent, may be reluctant, or simply unable, to meet such outlay from their own funds. Where the driver was not responsible for the accident, they may be able to obtain a replacement by a different arrangement, namely by credit hire.
What is credit hire?
The term ‘credit hire’ is used to describe this service because the hire company will provide...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Credit hire quantum disputes: need/type, BHR vs credit rates, hire period, impecuniosity, excess waivers, geographical scope and evidence (including self‑employed drivers)
Defendant insurers frequently challenge matters going to the quantum of hire charge claims. The usual areas in dispute are:
need/type
period
rate
For further guidance on credit hire claims, see Practice Notes: Credit hire—an introduction, which includes the Supreme Court case of Armstead (recovery of contractual liabilities owed by the claimant to the hire company for damage to the hire car caused by the defendant), and Credit hire—common liability issues.
Need/type of replacement
Where the claimant had no alternative vehicle, was too injured to drive after the accident, or was on holiday during the hire period, it is typically straightforward to show a replacement was needed. Disagreement can arise if the claimant hires, in place of their own car, an expensive or prestige model. The necessity for such a high-cost vehicle rather than a standard model may be questioned. The same approach applies to the class of car chosen. The claimant must mitigate loss, and part of that obligation is to avoid unreasonable steps that increase the loss. Again, the duty is not a demanding...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Defences to Occupiers’ Liability Claims in England and Wales: Status, Contributory Negligence, Volenti, Illegality, Warnings, Exclusions and Liability for Independent Contractors
The standard range of defences, including limitation, is also generally open to a defendant in such proceedings. A defendant might dispute being in occupation or having control of the premises, or otherwise contend that no duty of care whatsoever was owed to the claimant, or that any such duty was not breached. They may further assert that, for the purposes of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957), the claimant was not a lawful visitor but a trespasser, such that only the narrower duty under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 (OLA 1984) applied. Alternatively, the defendant could entirely reject both visitor and trespasser status, alleging the claimant was on a public right of way, and thus no duty of care arose under either OLA 1957 or OLA 1984. An occupier might also raise the following potential defences where relevant and appropriate.
Contributory negligence
The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 has application in cases brought under both OLA 1957 and OLA 1984. An occupier may argue that the visitor’s injuries were caused, or at least contributed to, by the visitor’s own conduct. Contributory negligence operates as a partial defence which may result in...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Defending Low Velocity Impact RTA Injury Claims: Procedure, Expert Evidence and Leading Cases (England and Wales)
Introduction
Over roughly the past decade, motor insurers have refined a method for spotting and handling personal injury claims from road accidents, especially alleged whiplash said to result from low-speed impacts. The focus is on collisions that seem minor in nature, typically arising in the following circumstances:
two or more vehicles were travelling slowly, or, less commonly, their contact amounted to a slight glancing blow or gentle nudge
one vehicle was stationary and another struck it, often at the rear, at very low speed
Where an insurer considers a case fits this pattern, the defendant’s insurers may defend the claim on the footing that:
whiplash (or another injury) cannot be sustained in such a low-speed impact, asserting there is a threshold of physical force below which an occupant will not be injured
consequently, the claimant cannot satisfy the court that they suffered the stated injury, or indeed any injury, in this accident
Note: the measure used to describe the force imparted to the struck vehicle is Delta V, meaning the change in velocity, whether acceleration or deceleration...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Disease compensation schemes: P(WC)A 1979, 2008 and 2014 mesothelioma schemes, coal workers, radiation, armed forces and infected blood: eligibility, time limits and payments
Alternative routes for occupational disease compensation
Understandably, claimant practitioners will first direct their efforts towards a common law action in the civil courts for occupational disease. There are, however, occasions when that conventional route is unavailable to the client. This may stem from how the illness was contracted and, frequently, the absence of an identifiable tortfeasor (or at least one with insurance). In such cases, a range of statutory and administrative compensation schemes may offer an alternative avenue of redress. For civil claims for mesothelioma sufferers, see Practice Note: Mesothelioma claims—procedure. For each scheme identified, this Practice Note sets out the particular circumstances in which turning to the scheme may be appropriate...
The Pneumoconiosis etc (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 (P(WC)A 1979)
Definition
Pneumoconiosis describes a group of conditions arising from the inhalation and retention of dust within the lungs.
Applying
Apply by completing the relevant section of the ‘Mesothelioma and other lung diseases (PWC1)’ form and returning it to:
Barnsley Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit Office
Mail Handling Site A
Wolverhampton
WV98 1SY
Eligibility
Payment may be made in respect...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Employer vicarious liability: the close connection test from Salmond to Lister, Mohamud, Morrison and BXB, and the two-stage test (including quasi-employment) for acts in the course of employment
This Practice Note examines when a court will find an employer vicariously liable for a tort committed by an employee. The courts’ treatment of the ‘close connection’ test has shifted over time, and this Practice Note offers practitioners clarity on how the doctrine has progressed. To determine the situations in which a court may hold an employer responsible for an employee’s tort, it is helpful to trace the doctrine’s evolution...
Salmond test
Historically, the governing test was set out by Salmond in his 1907 work, Law of Torts. The central proposition was that a master would not be liable for a servant’s wrongful act unless it was carried out in the course of employment. Salmond added that an act would be treated as within the course of employment if it was either:
a wrongful act that the master had authorised, or
a wrongful and unauthorised method of performing an act the master had authorised
In the course of employment
Before Lister v Hesley Hall (see below), a claimant would seek to establish that...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Employers’ vicarious liability for intentional and criminal misconduct: close connection and relationship-akin-to-employment tests across sexual abuse, assaults, workplace friction, horseplay and pranks
This Practice Note explores an employer’s vicarious responsibility for deliberate or criminal wrongdoing by an employee. It reviews commonly encountered scenarios involving sexual abuse, physical attacks, incidents arising from workplace tensions, and high jinks or pranks that misfire, as well as incidents that stem from interpersonal friction at work and conflict. Following the House of Lords’ ruling in Lister v Hesley Hall in 2001, it is established that, provided the relevant test is satisfied, an employer can be vicariously answerable for intentional harm committed by an employee (or, in some circumstances, by others occupying a similar or analogous position). See also Practice Notes:
Nature and operation of vicarious liability
Scope and impact of vicarious liability
Vicarious liability in the course of employment—the close connection test
The aim of this Practice Note is to provide a summary of the position in relation to different categories of intentional wrongdoing.
Sexual abuse
Since Lister, there has been a succession of cases addressing the issue of vicarious liability in relation to the sexual abuse of children in the care of local authorities, educational establishments and church organisations.
Relationship akin to employment
In DJ v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council, the claimant had been placed in...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Fatal accidents: PSLA, pre-death losses, funeral expenses, bereavement and dependency—LR(MP)A 1934 and FAA 1976 (England and Wales)
Any claim arising from a fatality may proceed under one or both of the following:
the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 (LR(MP)A 1934), which permits the deceased’s estate to bring an action
the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (FAA 1976), which enables dependants, within defined categories, to claim for loss of dependency
LR(MP)A 1934—pain, suffering and loss of amenity (PSLA)
The estate may claim for the pain, suffering and loss of amenity experienced by the deceased before death. In brief:
Pain and suffering turns on the deceased’s subjective awareness of injury
It can include the deceased’s recognition of a reduced life expectancy
Loss of amenity is not contingent on awareness of injury
Factors to consider when assessing PSLA include:
the intensity of pain and suffering
level of consciousness
awareness of a shortened life expectancy
the duration of suffering between the accident and death
loss of enjoyment of life during the period between the accident and death
Chapter 1 of the Judicial College Guidelines for the assessment of general damages sets out the appropriate...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Fraud in personal injury litigation: pleadings, professional duties, strike out, fundamental dishonesty (s57 CJCA 2015), contempt, exemplary damages, costs and QOCS consequences (England and Wales)
Fraud in personal injury claims can cover a spectrum of conduct, from overstating particular heads of damage to wholly inventing an accident and the ensuing injuries and losses. The available remedies where dishonesty is in play have been radically altered by section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (CJCA 2015). This provision can permit defendants to have otherwise meritorious claims struck out, to remove the shield of qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS), and to invalidate a claimant’s legal expenses cover. See Practice Notes: Personal injury claims and the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 and Qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS).
Duties and responsibilities of parties and legal advisers Pleadings—CPR
By virtue of CPR 16.5(2), if a defendant disputes an allegation in the particulars of claim, they must give their reasons; and where they propose a different account from the claimant’s, they must set out their own version of events.
there is no strict obligation to plead fraud within the defence, but
if a defendant wishes to allege fraud, it cannot be advanced, unless...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Gathering evidence in catastrophic injury claims: early home visits, structured witness statements, documentary records and care diaries to support liability and quantum
First meeting and early stages
In cases of serious injury, it is crucial that the claimant practitioner meets the claimant and their family at the earliest opportunity. These first interactions may involve more than one visit. Wherever feasible, the practitioner should arrange to see the claimant and relatives in their home setting. This might not be achievable while the claimant remains in hospital or within a rehabilitation unit. Nevertheless, once the client has been discharged, it is beneficial for the practitioner to attend at their home and meet with them and their family there...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Group Litigation Orders (GLOs) in England and Wales: scope, management, costs, alternatives and remedies under CPR 19 and PD 19B
Note: With effect from 6 April 2023, the provisions in CPR 19 were renumbered and amended pursuant to the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2023, SI 2023/105—see LNB News 02/02/2023 98—Amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules in force on 6 April 2023—The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2023. Further, modest amendments were made to CPR PD 19B by the 153rd practice direction update to the CPR—see LNB News 07/02/2023 72—153rd Practice Direction update—changes in force 31 January 2023 and 6 April 2023. The provisions addressing group litigation orders (GLOs) are now contained in CPR 19.21 to CPR 19.26 (renumbered from CPR 19.10 to CPR 19.15) and CPR PD 19B. However, note that many of the cases referenced below (decided before 6 April 2023) still cite the old numbering. Where the context of the provision has changed since the case was determined, this is explained.
What is a group litigation order?
A court may oversee multiple claims through a GLO. Such an order can be made before or after the commencement of proceedings, for the management and trial of a number of claims together. It is appropriate where numerous claims give rise to shared or related issues...
Dispute Resolution
PRACTICE NOTES
Group Litigation Orders under CPR 19 and PD 19B (England and Wales): applications, consent, GLO issues, registers, test cases, disclosure, cut-off dates, lead solicitors and costs
With effect from 6 April 2023, the provisions in CPR 19 were re-numbered and revised by the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2023, SI 2023/105—see: LNB News 02/02/2023 98—Amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules in force on 6 April 2023—The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2023.
Further, modest revisions were made to CPR PD 19B by the 153rd Practice Direction update to the CPR—see: LNB News 07/02/2023 72—153rd Practice Direction update—changes in force 31 January 2023 and 6 April 2023.
The provisions concerning group litigation orders (GLOs) are contained in CPR 19.21 to CPR 19.26 (previously CPR 19.10 to CPR 19.15) and CPR PD 19B. Note that many of the authorities cited below (handed down before 6 April 2023) use the prior numbering. Where the substance of a provision has altered since the judgment, this is clarified.
Who may apply for a group litigation order and when?
Importantly, subject to securing the necessary consent (see: Application for a GLO), the court may make a GLO of its own motion. That jurisdiction is found in CPR PD 19B, para 4 and the procedure for obtaining...
Dispute Resolution
PRACTICE NOTES
Interim payments in personal injury: CPR 25 applications, evidence, quantum (Eeles), timetable, CRU, counterclaims, summary judgment and PPO interactions (England and Wales)
Timing and procedure
Once the period for acknowledging service has expired, a claimant may seek an interim payment order. There is no obligation to re-file or re-serve any evidence already lodged or provided to the relevant party. The application must be made in accordance with, and as set out in, CPR 23, and Form N244 can be used for this purpose. The application notice must be accompanied by supporting evidence. See ‘Claimant’s evidence’ below. See also Practice Note: How to make an application for a court order (CPR 23)...
PI & Clinical Negligence
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.
