Jamie Hill

PROFILE

Jamie Hill is a well-regarded barrister, who has been recognised by the Legal 500 as the ‘Rising Star' for personal injury on the Northern Circuit in the 2023 and 2024 editions. Jamie practises in all areas of personal injury and accepts instructions on behalf of both Claimants and Defendants. Jamie is viewed as a professional and helpful barrister whose ability exceeds his year of call.

AREAS OF PRACTICE

SERIOUS INJURIES

Jamie has a busy multi-track personal injury practice. He regularly accepts instructions in cases with a pleaded value of £100,000 to £500,000. Jamie is often instructed early in such matters, to provide advice in conference or to assist with the compilation of expert evidence.

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.

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.

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. A copy of the judgment is available here: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/kb/2023/190.
• 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 CLAIMS

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.

CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE

Jamie has an evenly mixed clinical negligence practice. Jamie is comfortable in dealing with and advising on causation, which is often hotly contested.

Recent examples include:

• B v S (2023) – 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) – 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 settled, were served.

INQUESTS

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.

Recent examples include:

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