Russell practices exclusively in the field of personal injury work, representing both Claimants and Defendants in cases involving significant injuries following accidents in the workplace, public liability disputes and serious road traffic accidents. His usual caseload is Multi-Track cases with a value of £150,000 to £2.5 million in the county court and high court but he also has experience of being led in cases of very high value. He has a particular interest in cases involving serious spinal and limb injuries, particularly those involving mobility issues and the inability to return to work.
Russell’s work in the area of insurance fraud includes advising in cases involving allegations of exaggeration/malingering and complex medical issues such chronic pain conditions, functional neurological disorders and psychiatric conditions such as somatic symptom disorders.
Russell combines a friendly and approachable manner with a keen eye for detail and appreciation of commercial considerations, which is regarded as a key asset by his clients. He is regularly complimented on his ability to "get on" with his lay clients and to work within a team to secure the best possible outcome. This approach has led to regular instructions from a broad range of loyal clients, including many of the country's leading insurers, local authorities and national firms of solicitors.
AREAS OF PRACTICE
PERSONAL INJURY – SERIOUS INJURY
Russell has developed a significant depth of expertise and experience in personal injury work during his over twenty years in practice. He is regularly instructed to advise on expert evidence and is very experienced in dealing with experts in conference and at trial. Russell regularly accepts instructions for Joint Settlement Meetings and is highly sought after for his advice in relation to negotiation and settlement tactics more generally. He also continues to attend court on a regular basis, for case management and at trial, which gives him an invaluable insight into the current court approach to various issues. He is regularly instructed for CCMC’s and he is very experienced in dealing with contentious directions and disputes over costs budgets in high value personal injury claims.
Russell is often instructed in contentious and high value proceedings involving significant disputes of fact and/or complex medical causation issues, including cases involving the suspicion of exaggeration and malingering and the use of covert surveillance evidence. With a background in economics and finance, (including a stint working in the City in corporate finance), Russell is adept at working with figures and is meticulous in drafting detailed Schedules of Loss and Counter Schedules in high value cases.
As part of his commitment to developing solid working relationships, Russell often provides seminars to his solicitor and insurer clients.
- B v W – Instructed by D following a road traffic accident in which a cyclist suffered spinal injury resulting in incomplete paraplegia causing chronic musculoskeletal and neuropathic pain and bladder, bowel and sexual dysfunction. The claim, issued in the High Court, went to a JSM after core expert evidence was exchanged in 4 disciplines, with a value pleaded in excess of £4m plus provisional damages. At a JSM against leading counsel, Russell negotiated a settlement at £1.1m plus provisional damages.
- F v T & B – Instructed by C following an accident at work resulting in serious lower limb orthopaedic and soft tissue injuries, with a provisional value of approximately £2m. The claim is complex, involving disputes over liability, contributory negligence, causation and quantum. The litigation is ongoing.
- S v S – Instructed by D following a motorcycle accident resulting in a head injury and serious orthopaedic injuries including an above knee amputation. The litigation is ongoing, with initial expert evidence permitted in 9 disciplines.
- M v SCA – Instructed by C following what appeared to be a relatively modest facial injury sustained whilst at work which led to the development of a functional neurological disorder with significant ongoing symptoms. Preliminary expert evidence has been permitted in 7 disciplines and the litigation is ongoing.
- P v K – Instructed by D following a pedestrian v car road traffic accident, resulting in a serious head injury as well as significant internal and orthopaedic injuries. Following conferences with experts in 4 disciplines, Russell was asked to advise on liability, contributory negligence and quantum. Following his advice, settlement of the claim was negotiated and subsequently approved by the court.
- S v K – Instructed by C in an occupier’s liability claim that resulted in loss of sight in one eye. Ophthalmic expert evidence was complex. At a JSM, Russell negotiated a settlement of £175,000.
- H v MIB – Instructed by D following a fatal road traffic accident. A claim was advanced for financial dependency and services totalling in excess of £420,000. Russell negotiated settlement at £265,000 at a JSM.
- S v B & O – Instructed by D2 following an accident at work leading to the alleged development of CRPS and a claim said to be valued in excess of £100,000. Quantum and causation of the claim was disputed and D1 sought indemnity from D2. Russell was instructed to advise in conference with experts in the disciplines of orthopaedics, pain management and psychiatry on behalf of both D1 and D2 to marshal their expert evidence. Following service of Ds’ evidence, C’s claim was settled for only £7,500 but D1 continued its claim for indemnity to trial. At trial D1 accepted D2’s previous offer (made on Russell’s advice) for a minimal contribution and no order as to costs.
- M v C – Instructed by D following an accident at work resulting in soft tissue injury and the development of a pain/psychiatric condition. Following exchange of orthopaedic, pain and psychiatry evidence, C advanced a claim in excess of £400,000. Surveillance evidence was obtained. The claim was settled at £175,000 following a JSM shortly before trial.
- P v WSS - Instructed by C following a relatively minor accident at work but following which C continued to experience significant ongoing symptoms. Expert evidence in the fields of orthopaedics, pain management and psychiatry was obtained by both parties and there was significant dispute between the experts as to whether C's ongoing symptoms could be explained by a Somatic Symptom Disorder and, if so, whether this was attributable to the index accident. Negotiations at a JSM resulted in settlement at £195,000 net.
- A v OVT - Instructed by D following a serious road traffic accident which resulted in life-threatening injuries including multiple internal injuries, serious lower limb injuries and psychiatric injury. At an early JSM negotiations resulted in a settlement at £300,000.
- R v AFP - Instructed by C following an accident at work. C sustained a significant foot fracture that resulted in significant ongoing symptoms that impacted on his mobility and ability to work. Expert evidence in the fields of upper limb orthopaedics, lower limb orthopaedics and employment was obtained by both parties. The accident occurred very early in C's potential career as an electrician and there was significant dispute between the employment experts as to C's likely "but for" and "as is" employment prospects/earnings. Negotiations at a JSM resulted in settlement at just under £520,000.
- M v OCS - Instructed by D following a slipping accident in a public area. In addition to a modest hand injury, C maintained that she had suffered significant colorectal injury, with serious ongoing symptoms that impacted her ability to return to work. Expert evidence was obtained by both parties in the areas of orthopaedics and colorectal surgery and initially there was significant dispute as to causation. An application by C to adduce further documents, lay witness evidence and expert colorectal evidence on causation shortly prior to trial was successfully defended. C subsequently accepted D's (approximately 12 month) old Part 36 offer to settle the claim for £5,000 with costs consequences shortly before trial.
- W v CP - Instructed by C following a serious accident work resulting in a significant lower limb injury with ongoing mobility issues. Liability was disputed by D but following negotiations agreement was reached at a 2/3 to 1/3 split in favour of C. Preliminary expert evidence was obtained in the fields of orthopaedics, endocrinology, psychiatry and care/OT. A Preliminary Schedule was prepared for damages exceeding £800,000 and following service and further negotiations, settlement was agreed at £675,000 gross.
- C v N - Instructed by D following a serious RTA resulting in C sustaining significant multiple injuries including pelvic fractures, leg fractures, loss of a kidney, erectile dysfunction and psychiatric injury. C advanced significant claims for PSLA, Loss of Earnings and Care and his Preliminary Schedule was pleaded at in excess of £1 million. At an early JSM, settlement was successfully negotiated at £475,000 gross.
Outside of work, Russell is very active and enjoys most sports and outdoor activities. He has a particular interest in rugby and coaches at his local rugby club.
Personal Injury Bar Association
BA (Hons) Economics, Durham University, (Hatfield College)
Post-Graduate Diploma in Law, Nottingham Law School
BVC, Nottingham Law School
Russell is a practising barrister, who is regulated by the Bar Standards Board. Details of information held by the BSB about Russell can be found here.
Russell’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 Russell to undertake Court work on either a fixed fee or a brief fee plus additional refresher days basis. For advisory work, drafting and conferences it is most common for this to be charged at an hourly rate although fixed fees are available. Conditional Fee Agreements will be considered in cases with favourable prospects of success. Russell will typically return paperwork within 21 days, however professional commitments, complexity and volume of documentation can affect these approximate timescales.