Oliver Chapman

Oliver succeeded in a personal injury claim against BT plc following a High Court trial before Mr Justice William Davis in February 2015. The case was brought on behalf of Mr M who, during the course of his employment with BT, suffered an electric shock and sustained severe multiple injuries when the back of his head came into contact with an overhead high voltage power line. Mr M accepted that he made an error of judgment which contributed to the accident. However, we argued that the principal cause of the accident were the errors made by his employer and a fellow employee. After a three day trial, the judge found that BT was liable for the accident subject to a reduction of one third to allow for Mr M’s contribution.

In the quantum proceedings, we argued that Mr M had sustained a hypoxic brain injury and that he lacked capacity to conduct the litigation or manage his financial affairs. The defendant contended that he did not sustain a brain injury and that any ongoing effects were a psychiatric response to the accident. Accordingly, they were amenable to treatment.

In June 2017, three weeks before a quantum trial, the case settled for £1.1m, which took into account the reduction for contributory negligence, and therefore represented a gross valuation of £1.65m.

Mrs K was driving her car at 40-45mph when the defendant’s car pulled across her path, resulting in a head-on collision. She suffered immediate pain from her soft tissue injury sites which became progressively more intrusive and difficult to endure. Her mobility was compromised by reason of soft tissue injuries to her feet and ankles. She was unable to return to work and her contract of employment was terminated when she resigned on medical grounds eight months later.

About five months after the accident she began to experience involuntary jerking movements in her legs, and later in all four limbs, which became increasingly frequent and aggressive.

The tremors, coupled with the chronic pain across her body, became acutely debilitating to the point where she mobilised in a wheelchair when outside of the home and her lower limbs were tremoring. At other times she had been able to walk slowly, usually with walking aids. Her symptoms deteriorated over the first 18 months after the accident and plateaued thereafter.

She underwent clinical and medico-legal assessment by experts in the fields of neuropsychiatry, neurology, chronic pain, orthopaedic surgery and neuropsychology. The experts were agreed that there was no enduring organic basis for her chronic presentation. The expert neuropsychiatrist diagnosed chronic pain disorder likely to be psychologically driven, and a functional neurological disorder (“FND”).

The causative impact of the accident was vigorously defended by the defendant before we negotiated a settlement of £834,500.

Oliver succeeded in a personal injury claim against BT plc following a High Court trial before Mr Justice William Davis in February 2015. The case was brought on behalf of Mr M who, during the course of his employment with BT, suffered an electric shock and sustained severe multiple injuries when the back of his head came into contact with an overhead high voltage power line.

Mr M accepted that he made an error of judgment which contributed to the accident. However, we argued that the principal cause of the accident were the errors made by his employer and a fellow employee. After a three day trial, the judge found that BT was liable for the accident subject to a reduction of one third to allow for Mr M’s contribution.

In the quantum proceedings, we argued that Mr M had sustained a hypoxic brain injury and that he lacked capacity to conduct the litigation or manage his financial affairs. The defendant contended that he did not sustain a brain injury and that any ongoing effects were a psychiatric response to the accident. Accordingly, they were amenable to treatment.

In June 2017, three weeks before a quantum trial, the case settled for £1.1m, which took into account the reduction for contributory negligence, and therefore represented a gross valuation of £1.65m.

Mrs M suffered permanent total blindness at the age of 79 as a result of the defendant’s negligent failure to diagnose and treat temporal arteritis (giant cell arteritis) following her attendance at Queen Mary’s Hospital, Sidcup, with a classic presentation of that condition. The defendant subsequently admitted that with appropriate treatment the claimant’s eyesight would have been saved. The case settled for £760,000.

Mr F underwent surgery following an ankle fracture, but there were numerous surgical errors and, one month later, he required revision surgery. Thereafter Mr F continued to suffer problems with his ankle as a result of the development of osteoarthritis in the joint, for which he underwent five further procedures, but he was left with chronic pain and disability. The defendant admitted that the initial management was negligent and that, as a result of its breaches, he suffered additional pain between the first and second operations and required revision surgery. However, it was denied that any of his subsequent problems were attributable to his initial mismanagement, but rather were due to the severity of the initial fracture, and valued the claim between £600 and £1,200. The case settled one month before trial for £500,000.

Mrs D was walking her dog when she was struck by the defendant’s car resulting in multiple fractures, aggravation of significant pre-existing back pain, and increased breathlessness and chest infections.

Whilst the NHS could not explain her chest symptoms, Oliver’s investigations identified that she had ruptured her diaphragm in the index accident. The case was complicated by Mrs D’s medical history and pre-existing care needs, but settled for £387,500.

Oliver acted for Mr C who sustained injury when the defendant driver negligently pulled into the path of his motorcycle.

It was the claimant’s case that as a result of the accident he suffered a diffuse axonal traumatic brain injury of at least moderate severity, together with PTSD and major depressive disorder. He also sustained soft tissue spinal injuries and soft tissue injury to his right shoulder.

During the course of the case, amongst other aggressive acts, the defendant unilaterally withdrew funding for case management and rehabilitation, served surveillance evidence and alleged that the claimant was fundamentally dishonest. He was invited to discontinue his case and threatened with committal proceedings.

The principal difficulty of the case was the question of whether the claimant had suffered an organic brain injury or whether the defendant was correct in asserting that there was no evidence of brain damage or neurological dysfunction, that any psychiatric problems were the result of a pre-existing condition and ongoing problems were caused by the claimant’s abuse of alcohol.

Oliver refused to be cowed by the defendant’s aggressive tactics – believing the claimant and his experts and providing the defendant with detailed and cogent responses to the alleged inconsistencies in his case – and ultimately negotiated a settlement of £350,000.

Oliver secured a prompt settlement of £320,000 for a claimant who suffered multiple orthopaedic injuries in a road traffic accident when the defendant’s vehicle veered into his path.

Oliver secured a life-time settlement of £275,000 for Mr H who developed mesothelioma having been exposed to asbestos whilst working as an apprentice and subsequently qualified instrument mechanic at Tovil and Bridge Paper Mills in Maidstone.

Oliver acted for Mrs M who was left with permanent hip pain and reduced mobility following negligently performed hip replacement revision surgery.

Liability was denied and the defendant rejected all attempts at settlement until his position changed following the experts’ joint discussions.

The defendant’s expert, who had not hitherto been provided by those instructing him with key documents, made a number of important concessions. The defendant finally entered negotiations and the case settled for £170,000 shortly before trial.

The claim resulted from a head-on collision in which Mr B and his passengers, Mr and Mrs N, suffered significant multiple internal and orthopaedic injuries when an approaching car, driven by a Mr R, veered into their path.

Oliver was initially instructed by Mr and Mrs N who informed him that Mr R had not been prosecuted having pleaded automatism after suffering a blackout at the wheel.

An experienced personal injury barrister provided initial advice that the defence was likely to succeed.

Unperturbed, Oliver argued that Mr R was negligent as statements in the police report indicated that he had suffered at least three bouts of dizziness in the days before the accident.

These symptoms rendered him unable to walk and clearly unfit to drive. He appeared to recognise this by refraining from driving for a couple of days. Liability was vehemently denied.

Both Mr B’s solicitors and the defendant’s passengers’ solicitors each abandoned their claims having received negative advice from counsel. However, Oliver believed the claim had merit and accepted Mr B’s instructions.

The defendant’s representative invited Oliver to a meeting to discuss liability following which they insisted he would discontinue. Beforehand, Oliver obtained medical evidence and valued the claims in order that quantum could be considered at the meeting.

At the meeting, Oliver successfully negotiated settlements of £100,000 for Mr B, £60,000 for Mr N and £22,500 for Mrs N plus costs which reflected the significant litigation risk but still 60% of the full value.

The case concerned Mr B who was attacked by a relative’s golden retriever dog whilst home alone. He suffered a significant laceration to his face and further puncture wounds to his hand, wrist and the back of his head. He lost a lot of blood and thought that he was going to die. Oliver was instructed and, through careful analysis, argued that the notoriously complex Animals Act 1971 imposed strict liability despite the golden retriever not belonging to a dangerous species. The claim settled for £85,000.