Experience
Personal Injury
Stuart is an experienced advocate with vast experience of personal injury claims.
He is recognised for his pragmatic approach, forensic case analysis, robust cross examination and focussed submissions.
Stuart prides himself on his busy personal injury practice, regularly acting on behalf of clients in road traffic claims, employers' liability, and public liability cases.
Stuart has amassed significant court experience from interlocutory applications to fast-track and multi-track trials.
Stuart regularly advises on liability and quantum in addition to drafting statements of case, and undertakes work at all stages and is happy to advise on procedure and tactics.
Fraud
Stuart is regularly instructed to act on behalf of a number of leading defendant insurers as panel Counsel.
He is regularly instructed in cases where fraud is alleged or imputed, or in other suspicious cases where a robust and thorough defence is required.
He is considerable experience in cases involving alleged fraud rings, phantom passenger claims, low velocity impact (LVI), exaggeration and credit hire claims.
Stuart is instructed from pre-issue advice to conference with insured and insurer clients, drafting pleadings, attending interlocutory pleadings and attends complex fraud trials all over the country.
Regulatory
Stuart has experience representing core participants at inquests.
Notable Cases
Miss Ruqayya Ali (2) “U” (a minor by his litigation friend Mr Haroon Rashid) (3) Mrs Samina Younis v BFS Group Limited
- Fundamental Dishonesty found against legal secretary of Bradford Law Firm for bogus passenger claim.
- Genuine claim of driver valued by the Court at £8.024.74 struck out as a result of supporting a bogus passenger claim pursuant to S57 of Criminal Justice & Courts Act 2015
Mr Raja Faisal Aziz v The National Farmers Union Insurance Company
- The Claimant brought a claim on the grounds of personal injury and need for a replacement hire. Due to his inconsistent reporting of the onset, severity and duration of his alleged injuries, in addition to the fact that he had travelled abroad for a significant period of time during the currency of his hire period, the Court found that the claim was fundamentally dishonest.
- The Claimant was ordered to repay an interim payment in the sum of £1300 in addition to paying the Defendant’s costs assessed by the Court, and enforceable pursuant to CPR 44.16 in the sum of £7070.80.
Mr Morris Roberts v Miss Judith Bennet
- Liability was admitted and the claim proceeded on the basis of causation and quantum only. The Defendant did not admit that the collision was capable of causing injury.
- The Court found that the Claimant has brought a claim that he knew to be fundamentally dishonest, resulting in no injury to himself and limited, if any, additional damage to his vehicle which only during the trial did he accept was carrying significant pre-existing damage to the front nearside corner of the bumper in this extremely low velocity matter incident.
- The Claimant’s claim was dismissed and a finding of fundamental dishonesty against the Claimant, further to the guidance from Molodi v Cambridge Vibrations.
Skyfire Insurance v Others
- The Claimant successfully brought a number of Tort of Deceit claims against a group of Defendants who had all instructed a large firm of solicitors further to their fraudulent alleged involvement in road traffic accidents purportedly involving the Claimant’s Insured drivers.
- The similar facts evidence of all the claims involved an imposter contacting the Claimant and identifying as their insured for the purposes of reporting their involvement as the fault driver in a road traffic accident.
- Shortly after this the Claimant then received Claim Notification Forms from individuals who alleged to have been involved and injured in the purported index accident for the purposes of dishonestly claiming compensation for injuries that they knew they had not suffered due to their non-involvement in the fictitious accidents.
- Further to drafting the pleadings, and then inviting the Court to list the matters together on the basis of the same facts evidence, Stuart was able to secure Tort of Deceit findings and successfully recovered both exemplary damages in the sum of £5000 against each individual Defendant, in addition to the Claimant’s costs summarily assessed in excess of £10,000 on the majority of claims.