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
Loss of state pension in personal injury: new state pension, NI credits, viability, and fatal accident dependency and benefits disregard (England and Wales)
If an accident has caused a claimant to lose entitlement to the state pension, there is, at first glance, a possible claim for that loss. Yet, to judge whether a claim is sustainable, the practitioner must confirm that a shortfall exists and, if so, pinpoint how the entitlement was lost...
How does a person qualify for the state pension?
To qualify for the state pension, a person must:
have paid, or been credited with, National Insurance contributions
have reached the state pension age
The new state pension
The label ‘new state pension’ is not merely a convenient phrase. While it is hardly ‘new’, the term matters because it separates the scheme from the earlier long-standing system. Anyone reaching state pension age on or after 6 April 2016 must claim the new state pension. Confusingly, however, the individual’s National Insurance record before 6 April 2016 is used to calculate what is known as ‘the starting amount’...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Occupational cancer litigation: duty, breach and causation, including mesothelioma’s Fairchild exception, doubling of risk, material contribution, foreseeability in asbestos cases, and evidential challenges
This Practice Note sets out the legal principles relevant to occupational cancer claims, concentrating on causation and the approach the court will take in deciding whether the claimant has satisfied the burden of proof. As with other personal injury actions, the claimant must demonstrate that:
the defendant owed them a duty
that duty was breached
the breach resulted in damage
Duty and breach
Where the defendant employed the claimant, disputes about the existence of a duty should rarely arise. Claimants ought to found their case on breaches of applicable statutory duties alongside negligence at common law. Commonly, in disease claims said to stem from dust in a factory environment, the claimant will plead, according to the period of the alleged exposure, a breach of section 47 of the Factories Act 1937 or section 63 of the Factories Act 1961...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Occupiers’ Liability (England and Wales): contractors, builders and landlords—duties, defences, control, insurance checks, multiple occupiers, and interplay with DPA 1972 and LTA 1985
Independent contractors
At times, premises may remain hazardous owing to defective construction, maintenance, or repair undertaken (or still in progress) by independent contractors. In other cases, such contractors are brought in to fix a risk yet do not succeed. The issue then arises: is the occupier responsible for injury suffered by a visitor as a result? As a general rule, unless the agreement under which the occupier has engaged the services states otherwise, the occupier will not be liable, under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957), for negligence committed by independent contractors operating on the premises. Note that the pertinent rule, OLA 1957, s 2(4)(b), is confined to construction, maintenance, or repair works. The occupier bears the burden of showing that an independent contractor was in fact instructed. In other words, the occupier must demonstrate that the contractor was retained to act...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Occupiers’ Liability (England and Wales): Scope of ‘Premises’, Lawful Visitors, and Countryside/Public Rights of Way
What are ‘premises’?
Although the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957) regulates the liability of those who occupy or control premises, the statute does not define the term. The expression is to be interpreted very widely and embraces:
any fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft; this covers both permanent and temporary structures such as scaffolding and ladders. In Furmedge v Chester-Le-Street District Council a company that installed a large inflatable sculpture was found liable when high winds tore it from its moorings
land itself (so the owner of a park, field or garden falls within OLA 1957)
railway lines
airport runways (Monarch Airlines v London Luton Airport [1998] Lloyd's Rep 403, [1997] CLC 698 (not reported by LexisNexis®))
harbour waters
When will a potential claimant be a ‘lawful visitor’?
In principle, the answer is simple: anyone who enters premises with the occupier’s actual (ie express) or implied permission is a lawful visitor. Permission, whether express or implied, seems a straightforward concept, and in relation to actual permission it usually is, but this is not...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984: duty to unauthorised visitors—triggers, scope, defences (warnings, volenti), children and premises-related personal injury only (England and Wales)
This Practice Note reviews the occupier’s duty of care towards individuals entering premises without consent, with principal reference to the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 (OLA 1984). It outlines what amounts to an ‘unauthorised visitor’, identifies when duties can be triggered, the extent of those obligations, and when an occupier can avoid liability for injury caused by dangers arising from, or connected with, the condition of the premises.
Background
The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957) established a common duty of care owed by occupiers of premises. That duty was ‘common’ in that it applied to various categories of lawful, or authorised, visitors, such as invitees, licensees, and those whose right to be on the premises derived from a contract. Under OLA 1957, no duty was owed to unauthorised visitors or trespassers. The enactment of OLA 1984 introduced a new duty owed by occupiers to unauthorised visitors. Practitioners should note this duty is considerably more limited than that under OLA 1957 in favour of lawful visitors.
Who is an occupier?
An occupier is any person who would be regarded as an occupier under OLA 1957. OLA 1957 contains...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Passenger death and injury claims at sea under the Athens Convention (2002 Protocol): UK implementation, strict liability, insurance, limitation, limits, jurisdiction, procedure, and interaction with the package travel regime
Nearly all maritime accident claims fall under the Athens Convention (the Convention), applied in the UK through section 183 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (MSA 1995). Notably, the Convention underwent major revision under the 2002 Protocol, the results of which are set out in the ‘Consolidated Convention’. From 31 December 2012, the EU brought in Regulation (EC) 392/2009 to give effect to the 2002 Protocol. In the UK this EU instrument was implemented by the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Passengers by Sea) Regulations 2012, SI 2012/3152. The Merchant Shipping (Passengers’ Rights) (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, SI 2019/649, alters the EU Regulation so that references to the EU are replaced with the UK. Separately, the 2002 Protocol entered into force on 23 April 2014. For comprehensive guidance on how the 2002 Protocol has been implemented, practitioners should consult a specialist text on this subject in detail...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Periodical Payments Orders in Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence: Rationale, Legal Framework, Ogden Tables 8th edition, Court Factors, Procedure and Part 36 Mixed Offers (England and Wales)
Background and framework
In the great majority of personal injury and clinical negligence claims, when the court grants damages, the sum is usually paid at once as a lump sum straight to the claimant. That said, in any such claim where the award concerns future pecuniary loss, the court may direct that compensation be paid by way of periodical instalments, in full or in part. In fact, in these circumstances the court is required to consider whether to make such an order. The Damages Act 1996 (DA 1996) authorises the court, in personal injury proceedings, to make a periodical payments order (PPO), to award a lump sum, or to provide a mixture of both. For the purposes of DA 1996, s 7(1), 'personal injury' extends to any disease or any impairment of the claimant’s physical or mental condition, and a personal injury claim includes a claim issued under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 as well as a claim pursued under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976.
Why periodical payments?...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Personal injury periodical payments orders: funding security (FSCS/NHS/MIB), form of order and indexation (ASHE 6115/Thompstone; Ogden 8) in England and Wales
Security
Where compensation is paid as a lump sum only, once damages and costs have been settled, the claimant need not be concerned about future payment security. Conversely, if a periodical payments order is made, the claimant will depend on that security for the rest of their life. The court treats security of payment as essential and will not make a periodical payments order unless satisfied that the ongoing payments are reasonably secure. Payments are automatically treated as reasonably secure where:
the payer is a government or health service body
the insurer benefits from protection under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS)
a ministerial guarantee applies
The first two situations are commonplace, while the third is relatively rare.
Government or health service body
There are many government or health service bodies listed in the Damages (Government and Health Service Bodies) Order 2005, SI 2005/474. Settlements reached between claimants and NHS bodies (including foundation trusts) have been confirmed as reasonably secure under a Model Order, in which the NHS Litigation Authority (now NHS Resolution) agreed to be named as the...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Post-Brexit EU road traffic claims: jurisdiction, applicable law (UK Rome II), service out, direct actions against insurers, uninsured motorists and limitation in England and Wales
The aim of this Practice Note is to steer practitioners through the principal issues and difficulties encountered when handling a claim stemming from a road traffic incident within the EU. Those acting for claimants are frequently contacted by would‑be clients injured while travelling on EU roads. Commonly—albeit not invariably—the injured person will have been a passenger in a vehicle driven by a relative or acquaintance. The focus is on claims arising from accidents in EU member states. This Practice Note addresses:
jurisdiction—whether, for proceedings issued on or after 1 January 2021, the courts of England and Wales can hear the claim; and, if they can
applicable law—which nation’s laws govern the distinct matters that arise
Brexit Jurisdiction
The principal legislative framework governing jurisdictional questions after the UK’s exit from the EU and IP completion day is the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, SI 2019/479. These Regulations amended the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (CJJA 1982). Those Regulations are central to jurisdictional matters after IP completion day...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Provisional Damages in Personal Injury: Statutory Basis, Criteria and Procedure (England and Wales)
Background and framework
Purpose of a provisional damages award
When the court grants a once-and-for-all lump sum, that award is meant to address losses already suffered and those expected ahead. Where a claimant’s prognosis remains uncertain, the court is empowered to order provisional damages to avert injustice to either of the parties.
If there is a risk that the claimant’s condition will deteriorate, fixing compensation by reference only to their current position could treat the claimant unfairly, leaving them under-compensated should their health decline. At the same time, it would be unjust to the defendant to make a lump sum in respect of a possible future condition that might never develop.
In addition to the power to make a periodical payments order, the court also has the ability to grant provisional damages so as to take account of future imponderables. In particular, that power ought to be exercised where compensating for the possibility that a claimant may suffer a serious deterioration would probably lead to overcompensation now, yet, if the risk were to materialise, the amount awarded would be insufficient to meet it. See further Practice Note: Periodical payments orders in personal ...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Provisional damages: pleading requirements, assessment orders, extending time limits, and applying for further damages
The initial application for provisional damages
Where a claimant intends to seek provisional damages, this must be expressly and formally pleaded within the particulars of the claim. The statement of case ought to clearly include the request for provisional damages and set out the legal basis on which the award is pursued.
Assessment of provisional damages
The court will initially value damages on the premise that no deterioration will occur, yet stipulate that the claimant may make...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Road traffic personal injury: fraud, exaggeration, low velocity impact (LVI), whiplash and credit hire—investigation, pleading and fundamental dishonesty (s 57 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015)
Definitions
Fraud
In Derry v Peek, fraud is described as the situation where a false statement is made either knowingly, without any belief in its accuracy, or with reckless indifference as to whether it is true or false.
Malingering
Under DSM-IV V65.2 and the DSM-5, malingering means the deliberate creation or overstatement of physical or psychological signs or symptoms, driven by external incentives.
Note: malingering, or deliberate exaggeration, should not be mistaken for unconscious amplification, often labelled by doctors and lawyers as 'functional overlay'.
Types of fraudulent claims
Terminology and categorisation differ across behaviours linked to road traffic claims that arouse suspicion, but in general the principal types are outlined below.
Deliberately staged accidents
These incidents arise when drivers and occupants of two, or sometimes more, vehicles intentionally bring about a collision, followed by injury claims from passengers and the supposedly 'innocent' driver. Additional claims can include charges for car hire, storage, and repairs. There is usually greater scope to investigate such events than those mentioned below, partly because insurers will look for proof of any relationship or association between the individuals involved.
Induced accidents
...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Secondary victims and psychiatric injury: practitioners' guide to the accident requirement, proximity and post-Paul limits on clinical negligence (England and Wales)
The development of the law
Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police has traditionally stood as the principal authority on secondary victim claims. Subsequent jurisprudence after Alcock evolved in a piecemeal way, with decisions that were sometimes inconsistent. The Supreme Court's ruling in Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust has introduced several revisions and offered much-needed certainty for practitioners. Grasping the landscape both before and after Paul matters because the underlying principles have been refined and clarified, though not every element has altered. Accordingly, this Practice Note is arranged into pre-Paul and post-Paul parts. The amendments attributable to Paul are clearly signposted within this Practice Note. For deeper commentary on the judgment, consult News Analysis: Landmark Supreme Court decision on secondary victims (Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust). It must be appreciated that claims by secondary victims form an exception to the general rule that, at common law, one individual has no legal entitlement to compensation concerning the physical integrity or condition of another. As with any exception, the law imposes constraints and control devices on the creation of...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
UK courts’ jurisdiction in foreign accident and personal injury claims post IP completion day: CPR PD 6B gateways, service out, consumer/employment rules, and forum non conveniens
It should be borne in mind that Brussels I (recast) may still be pertinent to proceedings issued on or after 1 January 2021, where they are connected to earlier proceedings begun before that date (see Articles 29 to 31 of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, Brussels I (recast)).
Defining and identifying jurisdiction
Jurisdiction denotes the authority of a court, for our purposes in England and Wales, to hear and decide a claim. It is separate from the governing law of the claim.
The courts of England and Wales may have jurisdiction to hear a claim, but this does not invariably mean that the applicable law is English law. For guidance on the various regimes for determining the applicable law, see Practice Note: Choice of law in foreign accident claims.
Jurisdiction concerns whether the claim can properly be brought in England and Wales. There are clear benefits for an individual living in England and Wales in issuing a claim there, including convenience and cost.
The test for establishing the court’s jurisdiction is assessed by reference to the position as at the date when proceedings were started. Claimant practitioners should provide a new client with early advice on whether the courts of England and...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
UK practitioners’ guide to air passenger accident claims under the Montreal Convention (and residual Warsaw): jurisdiction, liability, damages, contributory negligence, and two-year limitation
The Conventions
Two Conventions set out the rules governing the liability of air carriers for loss, injury and damage suffered in the course of, or arising from, international carriage by air. The shared objective of these Conventions is to harmonise the law on such issues.
Warsaw Convention
The earliest of these was the Warsaw Convention, signed in 1929 and brought into effect in 1933. It was later revised at The Hague in 1955 through adoption of the Hague Protocol, and thereafter was referred to as the Warsaw Convention as amended at The Hague in 1955. From that point it was cited under the amended title. Its scope extended only to states that were signatories. Where one party had signed the Warsaw Convention and the other had adhered only to the Hague Protocol, there was no common foundation for international litigation.
Montreal Convention
The Warsaw Convention was then replaced by the Montreal Convention, which was signed in 1999 and came into force in 2003...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
UK road traffic accidents involving foreign vehicles: Green Card scheme, MIB/UK correspondents, claims process, jurisdiction, service and applicable law post‑Brexit
NOTE :
This Practice Note relates to UK Rome II. The regulation applies when identifying the law governing cases where the harmful event amounting to a tort occurred on or after 1 January 2021. Formerly called Retained Rome II, from 1 January 2024 it has been retitled Assimilated Rome II—the alteration is in name alone; the regulation’s provisions are unchanged. Authorities may use either designation and, for convenience, this Practice Note refers to it as UK Rome II. For further detail on assimilated law, see Practice Note: Assimilated law.
This Practice Note outlines the legal framework and the procedure by which a victim brings a claim following a road traffic accident that happens in the UK but is caused by the driver of a foreign-registered vehicle. It is highly probable that insurance cover for that vehicle will have been provided by a foreign insurer.
Background
The Green Card system
The framework and procedure originated with the introduction of the Green Card system in the early 1950s. The purpose of that system was to facilitate the international...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Variable periodical payments orders in personal injury: criteria, drafting requirements, and variation procedure, with comparison to provisional damages
Fixed or variable orders
The court can stipulate fixed adjustments to take place at set future dates without the need for a further order. It can also allow for changes to the level of payments to be revisited on a subsequent application. Only the second category is termed a variable order; with the first, it is the payments that alter, not the order itself. NOTE: The Explanatory Notes to the Ogden tables give an illustration of when fixed adjustments may be suitable, for example where assumed future wage growth should be taken into account, or where residual earning capacity is expected to shift. Nothing alters that is directly pertinent to the variable order. A variable order may be granted when, at judgment, it is shown that the claimant might later suffer an additional serious illness or marked deterioration (for instance epilepsy or a syrinx) attributable to the injury, or, conversely, might experience a substantial improvement in their physical or psychological state. The possibility must be anticipated at the point of trial or compromise. Expert evidence may indicate that the combined impact of rehabilitation and/or the conclusion of proceedings should be reflected in any future variation considered upon application by the court as appropriate then...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Vicarious Liability: Relationships Akin to Employment, the Close Connection Test, and Employer Liability for Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duty, Harassment and Assault
This Practice Note explains what vicarious liability claims involve, with particular emphasis on the relationship between employer and tortfeasor in such matters. It examines the circumstances in which responsibility can flow from an employee’s wrongdoing, irrespective of any blame attaching to the employer at all. It also offers guidance on claims grounded in negligence or breach of statutory duty, including those brought in practice under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHA 1997). In personal injury litigation, a claimant will usually try to prove fault—negligence or breach of statutory duty—on the part of the named defendant, for example the employer. However, an alternative path is frequently open: namely, holding the employer vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of its worker or agent.
Nature of vicarious liability
Broadly stated, under the doctrine of vicarious liability, an employer bears liability for an employee’s torts where they are carried out in the course or scope of that employee’s employment, or are sufficiently closely connected to tasks the employer has authorised the employee to perform...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRECEDENTS
Particulars of claim template for pedestrian injury: foreign driver insured in the EU, direct action under the European Communities (Rights Against Insurers) Regulations 2002 (England and Wales)
[ In the County Court at [ insert ] or in the High Court of Justice ] [ [ specify division ] ] [ [ insert location ] District Registry ]
Claim No:
Between A Claimant and (1) B [ driver ] (2) C [ foreign insurer ] Defendants
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
On 2 December 2023, the Claimant was on foot, proceeding along High Street, London E18.
The First Defendant was operating an Opel bearing German registration number [ registration number ] and was travelling northbound on High Street.
Approaching the junction with Croydon Road, the Claimant attempted to cross High Street. He traversed the two nearside lanes, crossed the centre line and entered the first offside lane, at which point the First Defendant’s Opel collided with him, causing the injury, loss and damage particularised below...
PI & Clinical Negligence
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.
