Brian McCluggage

Personal Injury

Brian McCluggage is Head of the Personal Injury Team at Nine Chambers. He acts predominantly for insurers and their solicitors in complex and high-value personal injury and insurance disputes, typically ranging from £1 million to £20 million in value.

Brian is known for his detailed preparation and direct advice. He works collaboratively with professional clients from an early stage, ensuring that strategy is agreed and that cases are developed with a clear view to resolution—whether through negotiation, mediation, or trial. He is thoroughly at home with technical legal issues and large volumes of complex documentation, and is a formidable presence in the courtroom.

His personal injury practice includes liability disputes involving technical points of law or contested expert evidence; catastrophic injury claims, including serious limb trauma, spinal injury, and brain damage, where he has particular experience of accommodation claims, complex care regimes, and periodical payment orders; and fatal accident claims, especially those involving business interests or intricate financial evidence.

Brian is regularly instructed to lead joint settlement meetings and mediations. He is recognised for his thorough preparation, including detailed risk analysis and schedule work, and for a negotiating style that is robust but constructive.

For enquiries concerning claims where the value in dispute is likely to be below £1 million, please contact the clerks in the first instance to discuss suitability.

Insurance Fraud

Brian McCluggage has extensive experience in insurance fraud litigation and was involved in a number of leading cases, including Axa v. Financial Claims Solutions [2018] EWCA Civ 1330, the first Court of Appeal authority on exemplary damages in the insurance fraud context.

His fraud practice now focuses on malingering and fundamental dishonesty in high-value personal injury claims, and on first party insurance disputes involving allegations of exaggerated loss, fraudulent devices, or misrepresentation. He is experienced in the tactical handling of surveillance evidence, the cross-examination of claimants where dishonesty is alleged, and the careful pleading of fraud in defences and counter-schedules.

Brian will accept instruction in cases short of catastrophic injury where there are wider reputational or strategic dimensions for insurers, including tort of deceit and exemplary damages claims, post-litigation applications under Hayward v. Zurich, committal proceedings for contempt of court, and third party costs applications.

Commercial

Brian McCluggage developed a broad commercial and insurance practice in his early years at the Bar. He was junior counsel to the Crown for twenty years and gained experience across a wide range of civil and regulatory work, including professional negligence, contractual disputes, indirect taxation, applications under the Police Property Act, and injunctive relief in respect of restrictive covenants. He continues to accept instructions in substantial property damage, subrogated claims, and first party insurance litigation.

His practice in this area encompasses claims arising from damage to infrastructure and commercial property, including railway bridges and other high-value structures; fire damage claims, including disputes concerning Rylands v Fletcher liability and the application of ignis suus; and claims involving goods damaged or lost whilst in the custody of third parties, such as storage compounds and auction houses, where issues of bailment, limitation of liability, and sub-bailment frequently arise.

Brian is experienced in handling complex engineering and forensic evidence, substantial documentary disclosure, and multi-party disputes. He is equally comfortable advising on coverage and policy response as he is conducting trials on liability and quantum.

Solicitors and insurers seeking counsel for high-value property damage or bailment disputes are invited to contact the clerks.

Notable Cases

• JCA v. 1) CIC 2) MBD (2024) High Court, Manchester: settlement of brain injury/psychiatric case for £4.1m against Schedule of £14m as sole counsel against silk & junior. The primary issues in the case was causation of a treatment resistant severe schizophrenia – was it caused by brain injury or by genetic/drug induced reasons? If brain injury related, what care regime was appropriate given dangerous and unpredictable behaviour of the claimant?
• Bennion v. Adventure Park Snowdonia Ltd [2023] EWHC 3334 (KB): 5 day High Court liability trial defending devastating tetraplegia case following a surfing accident in the UK’s first artificial surfing lagoon.
• ABS v. LS & Esure (2023) High Court, Birmingham: settlement of serious brain and orthopaedic injury against a background of congenital physical issues and alcoholism. C left with cognitive deficits, limited use of right arm and aggravation of significant pre-existing knee problems. Life expectancy in issue. Settled for PPO on capitalised value of £3m against silk & junior.
• McD v. B (2023) County Court, Manchester: liability success at trial on running down accident on Deansgate causing significant brain injury to a drunken undergraduate. Issue of law on the ‘counterfactual’ construction of the reasonable driver – D’s own PRT or the reasonable man’s PRT?
• Sugden v. Cumbria County Council (2022): success in Highways Act case defeating claim by brain-injured cyclist riding into pothole. Judgment has implications for inspection regimes of rural local authorities, giving greater latitude to frequency of B roads.
• H v. City of York Council (2022): amputation case settled at JSM against leading & junior counsel. Claim pitched at £4m, settled at under £2m.
• BLA v. SAW (2022): serious brain injury case involving young woman who did not want excessive amounts of case management and rehabilitation foisted upon her by CM. Defendant was C’s partner giving rise to issues of relationship stability and contingencies. Issues over C solicitors approaching the insured without permission and applications to exclude evidence obtained. Settled for £2.25m.
• Monks v. Connolly Scaffolding (2022): 5-day liability & quantum trial in Manchester County Court. C alleged brain and psychiatric injury after scaffolding accident, but only recovered £3,500 rather than the £1m claimed.
• Hill v. Manchester Creative Academy (2022): success in employer’s/occupier’s liability trial involving serious injury after tripping over parking stop in school car park.
• Amdur v. Krylove (2021): 4 day trial involving claim by ‘celebrity psychic’ who alleged RTA had damaged his powers and earning capacity. FD found and claim dismissed after high octane trial. https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2021/04/20/fundamental-dishonesty-in-pursuing-a-loss-of-earnings-claim-it-is-not-necessary-for-the-purpose-of-this-case-for-the-court-to-determine-whether-psychic-powers-exist/
• LM v. PM (2020): settlement of brain damage claim for capitalised sum of £2.7 million involving hard fought dispute on numerous heads of claim, in particular on over-provision of therapies and support worker assistance.
• Phillips v. Clayton Williams (2020): settlement and approval of seven figure Fatal Accident Act claim on behalf of family of PC David Phillips, the victim of manslaughter arising from a Liverpool police chase in which the heroic deceased was deliberately run over when deploying a ‘stinger’ to stop the defendant’s vehicle. https://thepolicememorialtrust.org/pc-david-phillips/
• Kore v. Brocklebank [2019] EWHC 3491 (Mr Justice Turner): appeal on Fatal Accident Act claim involving the meaning of section 2(3) of the 1976 Act. Does a claimant pre-action have representative status for all dependants?
• JQ v. MOD (2019): settlement of birth injury clinical negligence case where claimant in his 20s who had managed conventional schooling suffered an organic personality disorder/anxiety leaving him unable to work or engage in activities outside his home. Claimant would not tolerate intervention but sought a 24 hour care regime. Settled for £2,250,000 lump sum plus £20,000 rising to £59,000 PPO.
• Jackson v. Hilti UK Limited (2019) Leeds County Court, HHJ Gosnell. Defeating £1m+ chronic pain case on factual/medical causation. Dr Simpson vs Dr McDowell as pain experts.
• Blake v. 1) Croasdale 2) Esure [2018] EWHC 1919 (QBD). Successful defence of alleged £3million brain damage case on basis of ex turpi causa.  Claimant was a passenger in a vehicle of alleged drug-dealers fleeing from the police.
• Axa Insurance v. 1) Financial Claims Solutions 2) Aurangzaib [2018] EWCA Civ 1330. Leading authority on exemplary damages in the tort of deceit. Affirmed availability of exemplary damages where fraud against insurers in personal injury litigation.
• Tuson v. Murphy [2018] EWCA Civ 1461. Court of Appeal authority on whether defendants can avoid the usual order where claimant guilty of malingering/fraud if Part 36 made with knowledge of the fraud. The underlying case reduced a seven-figure claim to five-figure sum.

<!--

-->

• Ford v. 1) Northern Rail  2) QBE Insurance [2018] EWHC 1417 (QBD): successful High Court appeal against finding for claimant at first instance in industrial disease case involving fraud. Replaced leading silk for purposes of the appeal.
• Rhys Williams v. 1) McMurrays Haulage 2) WM Morrisons [2018] EWHC 2079 (QB).  Part 20 Claim between Defendants after catastrophic injury to Claimant’s hand and wrist.  Contribution claim unsuccessful but pursued on economic grounds after excellent settlement with claimant meaning trial was cost effective.
• McHugh v. Okai-Koi [2017] EWHC 1346 (QBD): ex turpi causa, contributory negligence in high profile fatal case involving a road rage death in both tragic and unusual circumstances which gained national media attention https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/nurse-sued-for-250000-over-road-rage-death-of-london-mother-a3502726.html Claim was for £1.5 million, not £250k as reported by the Standard.
• Blake v. 1) Croasdale 2) Esure [2017] EWHC 1336 (QBD): a leading authority on resiling from admissions in cases involving change of value.
• Select Car Rentals v. Esure Services Limited [2017] EWHC 1434 (QBD): leading authority on insurers’ ability to obtain third party costs orders against credit hire companies.
• Shui v. University of Manchester [2018] ICR 77, Employment Appeal Tribunal decision exploring case management involving litigants-in-person suffering severe mental illness.
• Hatfield v. 1) Drax & 2) SG Transport (2017) HHJ Belcher: liability dispute arising out of truck accident leading to amputation. £2 million claim dismissed http://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2017/09/15/an-expert-report-that-was-extraordinary-in-its-presentation-and-shot-through-with-breath-taking-arrogance-this-doesnt-end-well/
• Jahan & Ali v. MIB 2015: fatal accident cases and nervous shock claims on behalf of families of victims killed in the ‘Birmingham riots’ in the summer of 2011.  Settled at JSM.  https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/28/tariq-jahan-sons-death-2011-riots-birmingham
• Express Solicitors v. Elite Insurance 2015: commercial litigation involving solicitors suing market leading ATE insurer for £500k unpaid indemnities.  Acted on behalf of the insurer defendant raising issues of breach of policy terms.  Counterclaimed in respect of unpaid premiums.  Settled on advantageous terms.
• Lancashire Business Park fire litigation 2015: instructed on behalf of electricians defending claims for fire damage worth £30million by owners of property in Lancashire Business park. Clients paid out £2million by insurers through ‘discharge of liability’ clause and so effectively self-insured. Settled on basis that lay client came out with money left over. Some 20 parties involved. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-16298158

Appointments

Fee-paid Employment Judge (2010 to date)

A Panel, Attorney General’s Panel for Civil Work (‘Treasury Counsel’) (2002 to 2023)

Barrister Member, Bar Disciplinary Tribunal (BTAS) (2017 to 2023)

Associations

Personal Injury Bar Association

British Insurance Lawyers Association

Employment Lawyers Association

Education

MA (Hons) Law, Cambridge University

LLM, University of Toronto

Awards

Middle Temple Fox Scholar

Prescribed Information

Mr McCluggage is a practising barrister, who is regulated by the Bar Standards Board. Details of information held by the BSB about Mr McCluggage can be found here. Chambers take complaints seriously. A copy of the complaints procedure, which details the process and any time limits which may apply, can be found here. The Legal Ombudsman website provides decisions it has made about legal service providers, which can be accessed here.

Mr McCluggage’s clerks will happily provide no obligation quotations for all legal services that he provides. Clerks contact details can be found here. Mr McCluggage undertakes court and ADR work on a fixed fee basis. Advisory work is most commonly charged at an hourly rate although fixed fees are available. Conditional Fee Agreement work will be considered in appropriate cases. Mr McCluggage will typically return paperwork within 21 days, however professional commitments, complexity and volume of documentation can affect these approximate timescales.

Related events

• Manchester Claims Association & Insurance Institute of Manchester – Half Day Seminar (Post-Seminar Networking Hosted by Nine Chambers)

  21/10/2025