Photo of Jamie Hill

Jamie Hill

Year of call 2016, Middle Temple  

Areas of Expertise
Insurance Fraud, Personal Injury

GDPR Policy

Scholarships and Prizes:

Pump Court Tax Chambers Scholarship
Blackstone Entrance Exhibition
BPP Regional Scholarship
Davies Group Law School Prize


Personal Injuries Bar Association
The European Circuit of the Bar
Northern Circuit
Manchester and District Medico-Legal Society


LLB (Hons), Staffordshire University
BPTC, BPP University

Jamie practises in all areas of personal injury and accepts instructions on behalf of both Claimants and Defendants. He has a busy and varied practice.

Serious injuries

Jamie has a busy multi-track personal injury practice. He regularly accepts instructions in cases with a value of £50,000 to £200,000. Jamie is often instructed early in such matters, to provide advice in conference pre-proceedings or to assist with the compilation of expert evidence.

Recent examples include:

  • T v C (2021) – advising in conference and settling pleadings for a claimant who had suffered a significant and permanent injury to her arm.
  • E v A (2019) – advising in conference and drafting a schedule of loss for a claimant who suffered bilateral pulmonary embolisms following a rear end collision. The Claimant was left with lifelong post-thrombotic syndrome.
  • P v M (2019) – advising a claimant, with a pre-existing ileostomy, who 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 s.57 CJCA.
  • J v A (2019) – obtained a finding of fundamental dishonesty against a claimant who was so inconsistent the Judge agreed that he was making up his evidence as he was going along.  The Judge also drew an adverse inference from the failure of his wife to support his claim.  The Claimant was ordered to pay the Defendant’s costs of defending the claim.

Employer's liability

Jamie’s practice in this area has a particular focus on cases which turn on the effect that s.69 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 has had on the ‘six-pack’ of health and safety Regulations.

Recent examples include:

  • 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.

Holiday claims

Jamie nearly exclusively acts for tour operators who have claims intimated against them for alleged holiday illness.  Although there is a clear overlap with his insurance fraud practice, often discreet causation and procedural issues arise.

Recent examples include:

  • L & B v O (2019) – secured the summary dismissal of the Claimants’ claims following submissions on preliminary procedural matters.  
  • F v T (2019) – successfully resisted the Claimant’s application for pre-action disclosure in a low value holiday illness claim.

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:

  • T v A (2019) – represented the Defendant café owner after a customer was scalded whilst using their premises.

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 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.

Stage 3 hearings

Jamie undertakes Stage 3 assessment of damages hearings and is familiar with the particular Rules, Protocols and fixed cost regimes.


Prescribed Information

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

Mr Hill's clerks will happily provide no obligation quotations for all legal services that he provides. Their contact details can be found here. It is most common for Mr Hill to undertake Court work for a fixed fee, negotiated in advance.  Paperwork and conferences are most commonly charged at an hourly rate, although fixed fees for certain matters are also available. Conditional Fee Agreements and Damages Based Agreements will be considered in cases with favourable prospects of success. Mr Hill will typically return paperwork within 10 working days, however professional commitments, complexity and the volume of documentation can affect these approximate timescales.

Personal Injury: "Jamie’s work is detailed and prompt, he is approachable, friendly and capable of maintaining a robust position in a professional capacity. Drafts are well written and it is evident that he puts a lot of time and effort into conducting research as part of his drafting process."

Legal 500 2023

Add Jamie Hill's details to the 'Brochure Creator'

Nine St John Street Chambers 'Brochure Creator'. From here you are able to create a personlised PDF of profiles you have viewed while browsing the site, you can then download your brochure as a PDF to use on your PC, Tablet or print a hard copy.

Find a Barrister