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:
- Fraud, including low velocity impact cases
- Road traffic accidents
- Accidents abroad
- Employers' liability
- Public liability
William's practice is predominantly focused upon insurance fraud litigation. 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.
William has developed a growing 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. 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 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.
William also has experience in representing interested parties at inquests. In 2010 he was led by Christopher Kennedy QC in the high profile inquest concerning the deaths arising out of the Dreamspace incident which occurred in Chester Le Street in July 2006.
William prides himself on providing high quality drafting and advisory work within the time frame required by his Instructing Solicitors.
William has delivered seminars in a number of areas of personal injury law and is happy to do so upon request. He enjoys meeting his Instructing Solicitors face-to-face to discuss their areas of practice and interest.
Snapshot of cases of interest:
- 2017 – Represented the Defendant in a low velocity impact case and successfully applied for dismissal of claim under section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 by reason of the Claimant's fundamental dishonesty.
- 2017 – Represented the Defendant in a low velocity impact case where the inconsistencies which arose during the course of cross-examination were such that the Claimant sought to drop his claim during the course of his evidence. The court subsequently made a finding of fundamental dishonesty.
- 2017 – Made successful application in the face of the court on the morning of trial to strike out a claim in which the Claimant sued under the principle in Monk v Warbey when the alleged driver was in fact insured under the policy of insurance. The Claimant's solicitors were ordered to show cause as to why they should not pay the Defendant's costs.
- 2017 – Advised a Claimant who was a patient regarding the settlement and approval of their claim in respect of injuries arising out of a nasty road traffic accident in which they were a pedestrian. There were complex neurological and care issues. Settlement achieved in excess of £100k.
- 2016 – Represented the insurer of a Spanish lorry which was involved in an accident in England. Successfully applied for a declaration that the English court had no jurisdiction to try the claim against the Defendant. Subsequently represented the Defendant Spanish lorry driver in relation to a subsequent claim brought outside the limitation period by the same Claimant. Successfully invited the court to find that the second proceedings were an abuse of process.
- 2015 – Represented Defendant in a claim for personal injury in which the Claimant had previously provided a witness statement in which he stated that he did not suffer injury but subsequently resiled from this position on the ground that he did not understand English. The Claimant discontinued his claim part way through cross-examination.
- 2015 – Represented the Defendant vehicle driver in respect of an alleged road accident involving a pedestrian Claimant who claimed to have suffered injury. The Defendant denied colliding into the Claimant. The claim was discontinued the week before trial following disclosure of evidence which was inconsistent with the Claimant’s witness statement. Successfully applied (on the date originally listed for trial) for a finding of fundamental dishonesty despite the absence of the Claimant at court. The court directed that the matter be referred to the Attorney General with a request that the Attorney General consider whether to bring proceedings for contempt of court.
- 2015 – Represented the Defendant in a claim involving an alleged rear end shunt. The Defendant’s case was that the Claimant was driving erratically and blowing kisses at her and that he braked for no reason. The claim was dismissed and a finding of fundamental dishonesty made.
- 2014 – Represented the Spanish insurer of a lorry which was involved in an accident in England. Successfully applied for a declaration that the English court had no jurisdiction to try the claim against the Defendant.
- 2013 – Represented the Claimant in 2 day multi-track trial in Bradford County Court concerning a slipping accident in a night club toilet. The Claimant admitted that she had consumed alcohol and illegal drugs prior to the accident. Nevertheless, the judge found in favour of the Claimant on the issue of primary liability.
- 2013 – Represented the insured in a low velocity impact case where liability was disputed by the insured. The trial judge found that the insured was negligent but found that the Claimants had not suffered injury or loss on the basis of inconsistencies in the Claimants’ witness evidence which were revealed in the course of cross-examination.
- 2012 – Represented the insured in a low velocity impact case where liability was disputed by the insured. The trial judge dismissed the claim on the basis that the insured’s evidence regarding liability was much more credible than the evidence of the Claimant and his 2 witnesses.
- 2011 – Represented insurance company in 2 day multi-track trial in Liverpool County Court involving 5 Claimants. Successfully resisted application made by 4 Claimants on the eve of trial to reinstate their claims following strike out for breach of court orders. Successfully defended remaining claim at trial despite all former Claimants attending court to give evidence. Finding of fraud made by the trial judge, who referred the file to the Chief Constable of Merseyside Police with a recommendation that the Claimants and First Defendant be prosecuted for perjury and perverting the course of justice. Indemnity costs awarded.
- 2011 – Represented insured in low velocity impact case. The Claimant discontinued his claim part way through cross-examination. Indemnity costs awarded.
William Hamilton is a practising barrister, who is regulated by the Bar Standards Board. Details of information held by the BSB about Mr Hamilton can be found here.
William’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 William to undertake Court work for a fixed fee or a brief fee plus additional refresher days. For advisory work, paperwork and conferences it is most commonly charged at an hourly rate although fixed fees are available. Conditional Fee Agreements and Damages Based Agreements will be considered in cases with favourable prospects of success. William will typically return paperwork within 14 days, however professional commitments, complexity and volume of documentation can affect these approximate timescales.