Jamie Hill

Personal Injury

Serious Injury

Jamie has a busy multi-track personal injury practice.  He accepts instructions in cases with a pleaded value of up to £1 million. His multi-track practice covers the full spectrum of personal injury litigation. Jamie is often instructed early in higher value matters, to provide advice in conference or to assist with the compilation of expert evidence. Clients welcome his views, not only on the legal position but also on what tactics should be deployed to secure the best possible outcome.

Recent examples include:

• H v S (2023) – a secondary school pupil lost part of his finger in a door that was alleged to be dangerous. Jamie settled the Defence, represented the Defendant successfully at 3 interlocutory hearings and advised in conference. The case eventually settled for around 25% of its pleaded value.
• W v H (2022) – Jamie advised in conference, settled the pleadings and represented W at the 2-day trial, in which liability was denied. W had slipped on ice and suffered a nasty wrist fracture which had healed in a malunited position.
• P v M (2019) – Jamie advised P, who had a pre-existing ileostomy, and suffered a prolapsed bowel as a result of a minor collision on a carpark. Major abdominal surgery was recommended, which carried an associated risk of infertility.

Road traffic collisions

Many of Jamie’s instructions involve serious injuries arising out of road traffic accidents. Jamie is experienced in dealing with liability, causation and quantum arguments.

Recent case examples:

– R v M (2019) – Jamie acted for the Claimant in an MIB untraced drivers matter, where a pedestrian had been struck and suffered serious injuries, including the traumatic amputation of her left ear. She also developed post-traumatic pain symptoms and had a number of serious orthopaedic injuries.

– E v A (2019) – Jamie represented the Claimant, who suffered bilateral pulmonary embolisms following a simple rear end collision. The Claimant was left with lifelong post-thrombotic syndrome. Jamie advised in conference and settled the Schedule of Loss. The case settled before trial.

– P v M (2019) – Jamie acted for the Claimant. She had a pre-existing ileostomy, due to a chronic bowel condition, and then suffered a bowel prolapse following a minor collision on a supermarket carpark. Significant abdominal surgery was recommended, which carried a risk of infertility.

Occupiers’ liability

Jamie acts in claims brought under the 1957 and 1984 Acts and understands the difference in approach required by both.

Recent examples include:

– W v A (2023) – the Claimant slipped on a spilt drink in a bar and suffered an ankle injury. At Trial, Jamie argued on behalf of the Defendant that it had in place a reasonable system for dealing with the risk of spilt drinks, namely continuous monitoring of the floor by its staff. Nonetheless, judgment was entered for the Claimant. Jamie advised on an appeal and successfully represented the Defendant in the High Court. The High Court accepted Jamie’s submission that the Trial Judge had fallen into error by imposing too high a standard of care upon the Defendant. The High Court entered judgment for the Defendant.

– T v A (2019) – represented the Defendant café owner after a customer was scalded whilst using their premises.

Employer’s liability

Jamie’s practice in this area has included a number of cases which have turned upon the effect that s.69 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 has had on the ‘six-pack’ Regulations. He has also successfully acted in a number of assault at work cases.

Recent examples include:

• R v B (2024) – successfully represented the Claimant at a 2-day liability trial. The Claimant, a teaching assistant, was subject to an ‘horrific’ assault perpetrated by a pupil. The Court found the assault had been caused by a failure to risk assess, a failure to follow the pupil’s behaviour plan and a failure to provide adequate locking mechanisms on the main entrance door.
• B v T (2022) – the Claimant had skidded on a wet floor, whilst at work, driving her order picking unit. The moisture had been left by a cleaning machine. The happening of the accident was not in dispute and confirmed by CCTV footage. On behalf of the Defendant employer, Jamie argued that the cleaning machine operated 24 hours per day and had done so for the last 6 years. There had never been a similar incident. In the circumstances, it was submitted the risk of such an accident was so low it was not reasonable or proportionate to take action.
• M v P (2019) – represented the Claimant in a case which turned upon the scope of the duty to keep traffic routes free from obstructions in the post-ERRA landscape.

Highways Act

Jamie often works on cases which turn on the reasonableness and thoroughness of a highway authority’s system of inspection and maintenance.

Recent examples include:

• B v S (2024) – Jamie successfully represented the Defendant local authority in a claim arising out of an accident in which the Claimant asserted he had slipped on mud. The case featured argument on whether this had arisen as a result of a failure to maintain the highway or a failure to remove an obstruction from the highway.
• B v L (2021) – Jamie successfully represented the Defendant local authority in a pothole pedestrian tripping claim. Following cross-examination, the Judge found the Claimant was unable to prove the date of the alleged accident or how it had occurred.
• B v B (2018) – successfully represented the Defendant local authority who relied on the ‘special’ s.58 defence, when presented with a claim involving a sizeable and dangerous pothole.

Insurance Fraud

Jamie has developed a specialist insurance fraud practice. He is able to expose possible dishonesty by identifying the inconsistencies and improbabilities within a case. He is a robust trial advocate with an effective cross-examination style.

Recent examples include:

• BJ v JM (2021) – secured the dismissal of the Claimant’s claim pursuant to Section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. This was a multi-track claim in which the Claimant asserted he had suffered a chronic pain syndrome as a result of a workplace incident. He asserted to the Consultant in Pain Medicine that he was unable to work, was living a sedentary lifestyle and could not drive due to the medication he was taking. Subsequent records demonstrated that account was untrue. At the time the Claimant made those assertions he was, in fact, working full time as a taxi driver. The Judge found that the Claimant had dishonestly exaggerated his injuries and that in reality all he had suffered was a modest 3 month soft-tissue injury. The Judge dismissed the entirety of the Claimant’s claim and ordered him to personally pay the Defendant’s costs of the entire action.
• A v A (2021) – obtained a finding of fundamental dishonesty against a claimant in a trial that proceeded remotely via CVP. The Defendant’s concerns had been particularised in the Defence and fundamental dishonesty had been raised in correspondence. The Claimant had claimed to be in severe pain for 6 months, yet when he had seen his GP on a number of occasions during this period he had failed to mention his alleged symptoms. On one occasion a different cause for the symptoms was offered by the Claimant. The Judge had no hesitation in making the finding of fundamental dishonesty and ordered the Claimant to personally pay the Defendant’s costs of successfully defending the claim.
• D and others v E (2020) – following a ‘skilful and thorough cross-examination’ obtained findings of fundamental dishonesty against all 3 Claimants. The Judge found, on balance, none of the Claimants had been injured. Their medical records and work history were damning. The Defendant secured an enforceable costs order. This case also featured legal argument on the scope of Section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.

Clinical Negligence

Jamie has developed an evenly mixed clinical negligence practice, acting for both claimants and defendants. Most of his clinical negligence work involves significant causation disputes. Such matters require a careful consideration of not only the expert opinion but contemporaneous medical records.

Jamie is often instructed early in clinical negligence cases in order to advise in conference and assist with the compilation and refining of expert evidence. He is familiar and comfortable with discussing draft reports with experts in conference.

Recent case examples:

– O v S (2023) – Jamie acted for the executor of the deceased Claimant, who suffered two grade 4 pressure ulcers due to prolonged negligent care in a nursing home. The case was of particular interest due to the Defendant’s arguments in relation to the impact Covid-19 had had on its ability to access hospital care.

– B v S (2023) – Jamie acted for the Defendant in a case in which it was alleged that culpable delay had resulted in the Claimant’s wrist fracture having healed in a malunited position. Breach of duty and causation was disputed.

– P v M (2022) – Jamie acted for the Claimant in a case in which it was alleged that a radiologist had negligently reported a CT scan, which had resulted in her bowel becoming irreversibly ischaemic. Whilst the Defendant admitted breach of duty, it denied causation. The case settled shortly after the Particulars of Claim, which Jamie had drafted, were served.

Inquests & Public Inquiries

Jamie is able to represent any ‘interested person’ involved in an Inquest, be it the family of the deceased or persons involved professionally, such as local authorities, clinicians and police officers. Jamie is aware of the significantly different approach required depending upon the nature of the relationship between the deceased and the ‘interested person’.

Recent case examples:

– DS (2023) – Jamie advised in conference and attended the Inquest on behalf of a landlord, following the death of its tenant in a housefire.

Jamie’s Inquest work is complimented by his serious personal injury and clinical negligence work. He has attended Inquests in cases where he was instructed by solicitors pursuing personal injury claims arising out of the incident that caused the Deceased’s death.

Associations

Personal Injuries Bar Association

Education

LLB (Hons), Staffordshire University

BPTC, BPP University

Awards

Pump Court Tax Chambers Scholarship

Blackstone Entrance Exhibition

BPP Regional Scholarship

Davies Group Law School Prize

Prescribed Information

Jamie Hill is a practising barrister, who is regulated by the Bar Standards Board. Details of information held by the BSB about Mr Hill can be found here.

Mr Hill’s clerks will happily provide no obligation quotations for all legal services that he provides. Their contact details can be found here. It is most common for Mr Hill to undertake Court work for a fixed fee, negotiated in advance.  Paperwork and conferences are most commonly charged at an hourly rate, although fixed fees for certain matters are also available. Conditional Fee Agreements and Damages Based Agreements will be considered in cases with favourable prospects of success. Mr Hill will typically return paperwork within 10 working days, however professional commitments, complexity and the volume of documentation can affect these approximate timescales.

Mr Hill also undertakes Direct Access work. This work is undertaken on a contractual basis, as agreed between the client and Mr Hill’s clerks. This is on fixed fee basis for a specific events such as a conference, advisory work, a hearing with additional hearing days (refreshers) or the drafting of specific documents. All work agreed to be undertaken by Mr Hill with the fixed fee cost will be clearly outlined in the direct access contract signed by the client and will be payable in full prior to the commencement of the work.