Thea Wilson
Thea has been a tenant at 12 King's Bench Walk since the completion of her pupillage in October 2010. She specialises in Personal Injury, Clinical Negligence, Inquests, Credit Hire, Fraud Work and Costs.
Thea appears in court regularly, acting for both claimants and defendants. Additionally, Thea has a busy paper-based practice, drafting particulars of claim, schedules of loss, defences, counter schedules and applications, and advising on liability and quantum.
Before coming to the Bar, Thea worked as a paralegal at a regional law firm, specialising in Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence claims.
Practice Area
Panel
- Contributing Author
Qualified Year
- 2008
Membership
- PIBA
- AvMA
- South Eastern Circuit
Qualification
- MA (Cantab), LLM, BVC
Education
- Newnham College, University of Cambridge
- Duke University School of Law
- BPP Law School
5 Contributions by Thea Wilson
PRECEDENTS
Archived precedent defence for credit hire claims (pre-13 June 2014 agreements): enforceability under 2008 Doorstep Regulations; need, period, like-for-like, rate and additional charges (England and Wales)
ARCHIVED: This Precedent has been archived and is not maintained.
In the County Court at [ insert ]Claim No:Between A B Claimant and X Y Defendant
Defence
It is accepted that the accident identified at paragraph 1 occurred at the time and place stated.
For the purposes of these proceedings, it is accepted that the accident was caused by the Defendant’s negligence.
The Defendant requires the Claimant to prove all heads of damage alleged.
Counter Schedule
3.1 Repairs—The Claimant is required to prove this head of loss. The Defendant notes that no documentary evidence has been provided and requires sight of the same.
3.2 Recovery—The Claimant is required to prove this head of loss. The Defendant notes that no documentary evidence has been provided and requires sight of the same.
3.3 Storage—The Claimant is required to prove this head of loss. The Defendant does not admit and requires the Claimant to prove that it was necessary to place the vehicle into storage and that the rate charged was reasonable.
3.4 Hire—denied
3.4.1 Enforceability (a) The Claimant’s liability for credit hire charges, whether in the amount alleged or at all, is denied.
...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRECEDENTS
County Court Particulars of Claim (England and Wales): Road Traffic Collision Caused by Misleading Indicator
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [ insert ]
Claim No:
Parties
1 A B — Claimant
2 X Y — Defendant
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
At all relevant times, the Claimant owned and drove a [ insert make and model of vehicle ] bearing registration [ insert registration number ]. The Defendant likewise owned and drove a [ insert make and model of vehicle ] with registration [ insert registration number ].
On [ insert date ], the Claimant was lawfully positioned at the junction of [ insert street name ] and [ insert street name, town, county ], stationary and intending to turn left. Whilst the Claimant waited, the Defendant’s vehicle approached from the Claimant’s right, reduced speed and indicated to turn left into the Claimant’s road...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRECEDENTS
Precedent particulars of claim for head-on collision during unsafe overtaking (County Court, England and Wales), including injury, loss, interest under s69 CCA 1984, and optional DA 1996 periodical payments
In the County Court at [ insert ], under Claim No: [ insert claim number ], between A B as Claimant and X Y as Defendant
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
At every relevant time, the Claimant owned and was driving a [ insert make and model of vehicle ], bearing registration [ insert registration number ]. The Defendant likewise was the owner and driver of a [ insert make and model of vehicle ], registration mark [ insert registration number ].
On [ insert date ], the Claimant was lawfully travelling along [ insert street name, town, county ]. Whilst the Claimant continued on that route, the Defendant’s vehicle, approaching from the opposite direction in the other lane, sought to pass a stationary car in that lane and moved across into the Claimant’s lane...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRECEDENTS
Precedent particulars of claim: pedestrian hit by drink‑driving motorist at crossing, relying on CEA 1968 s11 conviction; interest, schedule of loss and periodical payments (England and Wales)
[ IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [ INSERT ] OR IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ]
[ [ SPECIFY DIVISION ] ]
[ [ INSERT LOCATION ] DISTRICT REGISTRY ]
Claim No: [ insert claim number ]
Between
[ Insert the Claimant’s name ] Claimant
and
[ Insert the Defendant’s name ] Defendant
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
At all relevant times, the Defendant was both the owner and the driver of a [ insert make and model of vehicle ], registration number [ insert vehicle registration number ].
At [ insert time ] on [ insert date ], the Claimant was properly using the pedestrian crossing on [ insert street name, town, county ]. Whilst the Claimant was on the crossing, the Defendant approached at undue speed and drove erratically, failed to stop, and struck the Claimant, thereby causing injury to [ her OR him ]...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRECEDENTS
Precedent Particulars of Claim: Rear-end Collision Caused by Excessive Speed (England and Wales)
In the County Court at [ insert ] Claim No : [ insert claim number ] Between A B Claimant and X Y Defendant
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
At all relevant times, the Claimant owned and drove a [ insert make and model of vehicle ], registration [ insert registration number ]. The Defendant owned and drove a [ insert make and model of vehicle ], registration [ insert registration number ]
On [ insert date ], the Claimant was lawfully travelling on [ insert street name, town, county ], and had to reduce speed because a set of traffic lights was ahead...
PI & Clinical Negligence
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.
