David is in the casualty risks team. He deals with a variety of large loss claims, including chronic pain, stress at work and industrial disease as well as advising clients on policy coverage and interpretation.
He has dealt with cases on behalf of defendants that have significant industry repercussions including kidney damage in the print industry and NIHL in the transport sector. He has worked with a number of companies who maintain a high deductible and is skilled at working closely with the parties to guide and advise them of the best outcome.
- Advising an insurer on coverage under an income protection policy and the applicability of damages for late payment
- Hartman v South Essex Mental Health; Best v Staffordshire University. Bringing a successful appeal as one of the “Barber” group of stress claims. The Claimant had originally been successful in the county court in claiming for stress at work caused by overwork. The appeal involved the interpretation and application of the Hatton v Sutherland principles for stress at work and remains a leading Court of Appeal judgement on the point
- Bakir v University of Durham. Successfully defending the University of Durham at trial in a claim for psychiatric injury involving alleged bullying and harassment of a female student by her female tutor. The case involved the application of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the nature of the conduct which must sustained
- Girl Guiding in respect of an injury claim by a Scout who had attended a jointly organised activity weekend and suffered a serious head injury resulting in deafness when a metal goal post fell onto him. The claim went to trial but a successful division of liability was agreed with a preferential costs order in favour of the Guides
- Defending a leading high street bank from a claim by an ex-employee litigant in person for psychiatric injury arising from bullying and harassment at work. The case was notable for the amount of damages claimed (in excess of £1 million) and the complexity of the proceedings and allegations which were brought against not only the bank but also numerous named directors. The claim was successfully defended at a three day trial of the preliminary issue of whether the conduct alleged could amount to bullying and harassment.