William Hamilton

PROFILE

William has developed a busy practice in the field of personal injury. He has experience of advising and representing both Claimants and Defendants in cases involving a wide range of legal issues, including:

• Serious Injury
• Fraud, including low velocity impact cases
• Travel Law
• Employers' Liability and Public Liability
• Court of Protection
• Inquests

AREAS OF PRACTICE

FRAUD

Since the inception of his practice in 2008, William has gained an in-depth understanding of how fraud cases should be conducted. 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.

TRAVEL LAW

William is head of Chambers’ Travel & International Personal Injury Law team. He has developed a significant 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 and the implications of Brexit. He regularly advises on 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 a member of PEOPIL and regularly attends international personal injury law conferences. He maintains relationships with lawyers in many different jurisdictions which he is able to draw upon when advising in relation to cross-border cases.

EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY AND PUBLIC LIABILITY

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.

COURT OF PROTECTION

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.

INQUESTS

William 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.

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.

TRAINING SERVICES

William has delivered many seminars in a number of areas of personal injury law and is happy to do so upon request. William has also taken part in Q&A workshops and mock trials which he considers can provide practical training for his Instructing Solicitors. He enjoys meeting his Instructing Solicitors face-to-face to discuss their areas of practice, current legal trends and interests.