William Hamilton

Insurance Fraud

William’s practice is predominantly focused upon insurance fraud litigation. Since the inception of his practice in 2008, William has gained an in-depth understanding of how fraud cases should best be conducted. He has a busy court practice, defending major insurers in all manner of hearings, including in multi-day multi-track fraud trials. He has extensive experience in claims involving low velocity impact, staged/contrived collisions, phantom passengers and fraud rings.  William enjoys dealing with claims having technical and procedural complexity.

William prides himself on maintaining an up-to-date knowledge of the way the courts are applying the QOCS exceptions, particularly the fundamental dishonesty provisions under CPR r 44.16 and section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. A considerable number of his successes involve wasted costs orders being made where a claim has been negligently conducted, ensuring that costs recovery is maximised.

William believes that thorough preparation is the key to success in fraud cases, and enjoys working closely with his Instructing Solicitors at an early stage to consider the tactical requirements necessary to best deal with these cases.  He provides high quality drafting services, including drafting robust defences, counter-schedules and witness statements in support of interim applications. William is pleased to advise in conference in fraud cases.

William has developed a growing practice in the field of personal injuries sustained abroad, at sea and in the air. He receives regular instructions in relation to claims in which jurisdictional challenges have been raised, as well as cases engaging the Brussels I (recast) and Rome II Regulations. He regularly advises and appears in court in claims involving issues relating to these topics as well as the Package Travel Regulations, holiday claims (including gastric illness), local standards, and foreign road traffic accidents. A growing number of his recent instructions involve claims with a foreign element in which fraud concerns have arisen.

William is happy to provide seminars and training on issues relating to fraud cases.

Snapshot of recent cases of interest 

K v B (Trial 21.06.19) – Claim for ‘severe’ whiplash injuries following road traffic accident found to be fundamentally dishonest.  There was a significant delay in the claim being intimated in the context of a Claimant who had experience in making previous claims.

B v M & A Insurance Company (Trial 23.08.19) – This matter involved a number of claims intimated arising out of two road traffic accidents which were alleged to have occurred within the space of a few months involving the same tortfeasor.  Following both incidents the tortfeasor advertised the vehicle involved for sale without any apparent collision damage.  There were Facebook links between the occupants of the target vehicle involved in each collision.  The first litigated claim was not pursued following service of an amended defence pleading fraud.  The second litigated claim was pursued to the day of trial when it was dropped on terms that the Claimant paid the Second Defendant’s costs on an enforceable basis.

Q v L Insurance Company (Trial 19.09.19) – Claim for ‘severe’ whiplash injuries following road traffic accident found to be fundamentally dishonest.  The Claimant had failed to disclose previous relevant medical history and failed to seek medical attention following the index accident.

O v E Insurance Company (Trial 15.01.20) – Claim for whiplash injuries following minor road traffic accident.  The Claimant had allegedly been injured in an accident which took place a few weeks prior to the index accident yet failed to disclose this to the medical expert and alleged that he had recovered from it in his witness statement when that was not the case.  The claim found to be fundamentally dishonest.

S & W v D Assurance (Application 11.02.20) – Claims for injury brought against Belgian insurer of tortfeasor’s vehicle.  The Defendant made an application to strike out claims on the basis that the Claimants had failed to plead the provisions of Belgian law that gave them a direct right of action.  The claims were struck out with an enforceable costs order made against the Claimants and a show cause order made against the Claimants’ solicitors.

P & H v L Insurance Company (Trial 19.02.20) – Claims brought for alleged injuries arising after minor road traffic accident. There was a delay in the claims being intimated. During the course of their evidence, both Claimants gave inconsistent accounts in relation to the nature of their alleged injuries. The claims were dismissed and found to be fundamentally dishonest.

H v H (Trial 26.02.20) – Claim brought for alleged injuries arising from road traffic accident. There was a delay in the claim being intimated. The Claimant failed to seek medical attention despite alleging to have taken 4 weeks off work (which itself was unsubstantiated).  The claim was dismissed and found to be fundamentally dishonest.

Personal Injury

William has experience in representing clients in all manner of hearings, including in multi-day multi-track fraud trials. He believes that thorough preparation is the key to success in fraud cases, and enjoys working closely with his Instructing Solicitors at an early stage to consider the tactical requirements necessary to best deal with these cases. He is happy to provide seminars and training on issues relating to fraud cases.

William is regularly instructed in cases involving employers’ liability and public liability. He has successfully advised and represented both Claimants and Defendants in cases involving the application of the six-pack regulations, Highways Act 1980, Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984, as well as cases involving the application of more esoteric health and safety legislation. William enjoys the varied nature of this work.

William has developed a growing practice in the field of personal injuries sustained abroad, at sea and in the air. He receives regular instructions in relation to claims in which jurisdictional challenges have been raised. He has recently provided seminars on issues relating to jurisdiction and applicable law under the Brussels I and Rome II Regulations. He regularly advises on issues relating to these topics as well as the Package Travel Regulations, holiday claims, local standards, and foreign road traffic accidents.

William also has experience in representing interested parties at inquests. In 2010 he was led by Christopher Kennedy KC in the high profile inquest concerning the deaths arising out of the Dreamspace incident which occurred in Chester Le Street in July 2006.

William prides himself on providing high quality drafting and advisory work within the time frame required by his Instructing Solicitors.

William has delivered seminars in a number of areas of personal injury law and is happy to do so upon request. He enjoys meeting his Instructing Solicitors face-to-face to discuss their areas of practice and interest.

Snapshot of Cases of Interest
• 2015 – Represented Defendant in a claim for personal injury in which the Claimant had previously provided a witness statement in which he stated that he did not suffer injury but subsequently resiled from this position on the ground that he did not understand English. The Claimant discontinued his claim part way through cross-examination.

• 2015 – Represented the Defendant vehicle driver in respect of an alleged road accident involving a pedestrian Claimant who claimed to have suffered injury. The Defendant denied colliding into the Claimant. The claim was discontinued the week before trial following disclosure of evidence which was inconsistent with the Claimant’s witness statement. Successfully applied (on the date originally listed for trial) for a finding of fundamental dishonesty despite the absence of the Claimant at court. The court directed that the matter be referred to the Attorney General with a request that the Attorney General consider whether to bring proceedings for contempt of court.

• 2015 – Represented the Defendant in a claim involving an alleged rear end shunt. The Defendant’s case was that the Claimant was driving erratically and blowing kisses at her and that he braked for no reason. The claim was dismissed and a finding of fundamental dishonesty made.

• 2014 – Represented the Spanish insurer of a lorry which was involved in an accident in England. Successfully applied for a declaration that the English court had no jurisdiction to try the claim against the Defendant.

• 2013 – Represented the Claimant in 2 day multi-track trial in Bradford County Court concerning a slipping accident in a night club toilet. The Claimant admitted that she had consumed alcohol and illegal drugs prior to the accident. Nevertheless, the judge found in favour of the Claimant on the issue of primary liability.

• 2013 – Represented the insured in a low velocity impact case where liability was disputed by the insured. The trial judge found that the insured was negligent but found that the Claimants had not suffered injury or loss on the basis of inconsistencies in the Claimants’ witness evidence which were revealed in the course of cross-examination.

• 2012 – Represented the insured in a low velocity impact case where liability was disputed by the insured. The trial judge dismissed the claim on the basis that the insured’s evidence regarding liability was much more credible than the evidence of the Claimant and his 2 witnesses.

• 2011 – Represented insurance company in 2 day multi-track trial in Liverpool County Court involving 5 Claimants. Successfully resisted application made by 4 Claimants on the eve of trial to reinstate their claims following strike out for breach of court orders. Successfully defended remaining claim at trial despite all former Claimants attending court to give evidence. Finding of fraud made by the trial judge, who referred the file to the Chief Constable of Merseyside Police with a recommendation that the Claimants and First Defendant be prosecuted for perjury and perverting the course of justice. Indemnity costs awarded.

• 2011 – Represented insured in low velocity impact case. The Claimant discontinued his claim part way through cross-examination. Indemnity costs awarded.

Travel and International Personal Injury

As Head of the Travel Law Group , he regularly acts for both Claimants and Defendants and is able to advise on all aspects of travel law and jurisdictional issues. He has a particular knowledge and interest in the following:

– Jurisdictional issues under the Brussels I Regulation and the common law rules.
– Personal injury claims involving a foreign element (including consideration of the Rome II Regulation or the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995).
– Claims arising out of road traffic accidents with a foreign element, including jurisdictional and procedural issues arising therefrom.
– Claims involving international transport conventions (including the Warsaw Convention, Montreal Convention and Athens Convention, amongst others).
– Claims brought under EC Regulation 261/2004 in respect of denied boarding, cancellation and flight delay.
– Claims brought under the Package Travel Regulations, including claims against tour operators and hoteliers and consideration of local safety standards.
– Accidents arising out of leisure activities abroad, including accidents occurring during the course of dangerous activities undertaken on holiday.
– Food poisoning and other types of illness claims.

William is dedicated to providing a high quality service and prides himself on his prompt attention to paper work. He is happy to provide seminars on any aspect of travel law.

Inquests & Public Inquiries

William has broad experience in representing parties involved in inquests. He has experience of appearing before inquest juries as well as addressing arguments as to whether Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights is engaged.

William’s inquest practice is complemented by his extensive experience of personal injury law and many of his inquest instructions relate to deaths which are linked to ongoing compensation claims. William understands the need for a sensitive and careful approach to inquest hearings in this context.

In 2010, William was led by Christopher Kennedy KC in the high profile inquest concerning the deaths arising out of the Dreamspace incident which occurred in Chester Le Street in July 2006. This was widely covered in the press at the time: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/8662948.stm

Court of Protection

William brings his 15 years of advocacy and advisory experience to this incredibly important area of work. Having undertaken extensive research and shadowing of senior members of Chambers’ Court of Protection Team, William is keen to deploy his skills and compassion to assist the court in reaching decisions which protect the most vulnerable in society.

William has developed an understanding of the particularly sensitive nature of this area of work and is aware of the time and costs pressures that solicitors, social workers and clinicians face who work in this area.

William has particular interest in cases involving section 21A challenges to deprivation of liberty authorisations, section 16 health and welfare applications, detention and restraint, contact, medical treatment, sexual relations, social media and cases engaging the Mental Health Act 1983.

Notable Cases

K v B (Trial 21.06.19) – Claim for ‘severe’ whiplash injuries following road traffic accident found to be fundamentally dishonest. There was a significant delay in the claim being intimated in the context of a Claimant who had experience in making previous claims.

B v M & A Insurance Company (Trial 23.08.19) – This matter involved a number of claims intimated arising out of two road traffic accidents which were alleged to have occurred within the space of a few months involving the same tortfeasor. Following both incidents the tortfeasor advertised the vehicle involved for sale without any apparent collision damage. There were Facebook links between the occupants of the target vehicle involved in each collision. The first litigated claim was not pursued following service of an amended defence pleading fraud. The second litigated claim was pursued to the day of trial when it was dropped on terms that the Claimant paid the Second Defendant’s costs on an enforceable basis.

Q v L Insurance Company (Trial 19.09.19) – Claim for ‘severe’ whiplash injuries following road traffic accident found to be fundamentally dishonest. The Claimant had failed to disclose previous relevant medical history and failed to seek medical attention following the index accident.

O v E Insurance Company (Trial 15.01.20) – Claim for whiplash injuries following minor road traffic accident. The Claimant had allegedly been injured in an accident which took place a few weeks prior to the index accident yet failed to disclose this to the medical expert and alleged that he had recovered from it in his witness statement when that was not the case. The claim found to be fundamentally dishonest.

S & W v D Assurance (Application 11.02.20) – Claims for injury brought against Belgian insurer of tortfeasor’s vehicle. The Defendant made an application to strike out claims on the basis that the Claimants had failed to plead the provisions of Belgian law that gave them a direct right of action. The claims were struck out with an enforceable costs order made against the Claimants and a show cause order made against the Claimants’ solicitors.

P & H v L Insurance Company (Trial 19.02.20) – Claims brought for alleged injuries arising after minor road traffic accident. There was a delay in the claims being intimated. During the course of their evidence, both Claimants gave inconsistent accounts in relation to the nature of their alleged injuries. The claims were dismissed and found to be fundamentally dishonest.

H v H (Trial 26.02.20) – Claim brought for alleged injuries arising from road traffic accident. There was a delay in the claim being intimated. The Claimant failed to seek medical attention despite alleging to have taken 4 weeks off work (which itself was unsubstantiated). The claim was dismissed and found to be fundamentally dishonest.

H v V (Trial 16.04.20) – Acted for the Defendant in claim for injury arising out of road traffic accident in Germany. The Claim was pleaded at over £400,000, involved consideration of expert evidence in respect of German law and was complicated by the Claimant’s self-employed status. The two day trial was vacated at short notice due to the COVID pandemic but settlement was reached at £120,000 shortly thereafter.

Appointments

Fee-Paid Judge of the First-Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (2024)

Deputy District Judge (2022)

Associations

Personal Injury Bar Association

Awards

Hardwicke Entrance Award, Lincoln’s Inn

Education

LLB (Hons), University of Manchester

Bar Vocational Course, Inns of Court School of Law

Called to the Bar of Northern Ireland (2015) (Will is not currently practising in NI)

Prescribed Information

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

William’s clerks will happily provide no obligation quotations for all legal services that he provides. The Personal Injury clerks contact details can be found here. It is most common for William to undertake Court or Tribunal for a fixed fee or brief fee plus additional refresher days. For advisory work, drafting and conferences it is most commonly charged at an hourly rate, although fixed fees are available. Conditional Fee Agreements will be considered in cases with favourable prospects of success. William will typically return paperwork within 14 days, however professional commitments, complexity and volume of documentation can affect these approximate timescales.