David Boyle

Notable Cases

• Gulf View Medical Centre Limited (1) & Roopchand (2) v Tesheira (Trinidad and Tobago) [2022] UKPC 38

  Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

  Consideration of a number of issues pertaining to expert evidence, the range of opinion, CPR35 compliance etc. in the context of a fatal clinical negligence claim in Trinidad.

  In April 2004, Mr Tesheira, a former captain of the Trinidad football team, underwent a TURP procedure under the care of a Dr Goetz at Gulf View Medical Centre in San Fernando, Trinidad. Dr Roopchand was the anaesthetist. Unfortunately, Mr Tesheira developed heavy bleeding after the surgery and, despite the efforts of various doctors, died. The claim against Dr Goetz having been compromised, the action proceeded against the Medical Centre and Dr Roopchand. At the conclusion of the Claimant’s case, the Defendants, represented by Mary O’Rourke KC, argued that there was no case to answer by reason of the nature and strength of the evidence presented. The High Court rejected that argument and, the Defendants having been put to their election, entered judgment for TTD$18,034,772.33 (approximately £2.25M). The Court of Appeal overturned a number of findings of fact, but concluded that Dr Roopchand had been negligent and that the Medical Centre owed a Non-Delegable Duty to Mr Tesheira.

  Joined the case for the hearing before the Privy Council. Heavily engaged in drafting the final Statement of Case and the oral advocacy alongside Miss O’Rourke KC, arguing a number of points including the approach to the expert evidence and its quality, procedural unfairness, the effects of an admission in certain respects of the Claimant’s case, the Bolam test, and non-delegable duties under Woodland v Essex.

  Ultimately, the Court found that there were no novel points of law, and that the admission, made by previous solicitors in the initial Defence, meant that several of the arguments raised were not, in fact, open to the Appellant on this appeal, which was, accordingly, dismissed.

• Hamid v Khalid & Co-Operative Insurance Society General Insurance Limited [2017] EWCA Civ 201

  Court of Appeal

  Reiteration of guidance on overturning findings of fact, particularly when Second Defendant’s allegations of fraud dismissed at first instance. First Defendant (represented by DSB) emerged from side road onto another minor road in a snowstorm, not appreciating that Claimant, coming from his right, had right of way. Second Defendant (First Defendant’s insurer) unilaterally commissioned apparently damning engineering evidence which concluded that Claimant’s car was stationary at impact, and therefore pleaded fraud. No evidence of any link between the parties adduced or established. Claimant’s telephone call to the police in evidence. Claimant obtained engineering evidence. First Defendant did not. First Defendant, refused indemnity by Second Defendant, admitted fault, but adopted First Defendant’s position re quantum. After a 3 day trial, the Recorder found for the Claimant and granted First Defendant a declaration of indemnity. Second Defendant appealed. Held: (1) The judge was not “plainly wrong” (McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] UKSC 58 applied); (2) An acquittal of fraud should only be displaced on the clearest of grounds (Akerhielm v De Mare [1959] AC 789 applied) and this case fell well short; (3) Judge was entitled to reject the Expert evidence in favour of the evidence of the Claimant and First Defendant (Armstrong v First York Limited [2005] EWCA Civ 277 applied); (4) There was an issue of proportionality in play – to allow the appeal would be to order a retrial and another 3 day trial in a claim of modest value. Appeal dismissed. (Lewison, Henderson LJJ)

• Gray v Gibson [2014] EWCA Civ 355

  Court of Appeal

  Consideration of contributory negligence and apportionment in road traffic accidents on country lanes. Head on collision on country road between Claimant’s car and Defendant’s lorry, with lorry encroaching into Claimant’s lane but Claimant travelling 30mph at or about a bend in the road. Finding of 40% contributory negligence overturned and judgment for Claimant for 100% of her damages to be assessed. (Longmore, Patten, Christopher Clarke LJJ)

• West Midlands Travel Limited v Aviva Insurance UK Limited [2013] EWCA Civ 887

  Court of Appeal

  Consideration of the measure of damages, and the calculation thereof, for the loss of use of a bus caused by the Defendant’s insured’s admitted negligence. Claimants argued for general damages to be assessed on a standing charge whilst the Defendants sought to argue for a loss of profit basis and took issue with various aspects of the standing charge calculation. Standing charge allowed in full at first instance. Remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on Appeal. (Moore-Bick, Rimer, Underhill LJJ)

• Mitchell et al v United Co-Operatives Limited, [2012] EWCA Civ 348

  Court of Appeal

  Duty to be imposed on employers to protect employees from injury when commercial premises robbed by third parties. Claimants claimed for psychiatric injuries sustained in various robberies at employer’s mini-market premises. Claimants argued that a series of robberies at the premises meant that the Defendant should have reinstated security screens or employed permanent security guards. Claims dismissed both at first instance and on Appeal. (Ward, Tomlinson, Lewison LJJ)

• Smith v The Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police, [2012] EWCA Civ 161

  Court of Appeal

  Duty to be imposed on emergency service drivers and contributory negligence of pedestrians. Claimant severely injured when attempting to cross main road in front of Police car attending emergency. Trial Judge found Defendant to have been travelling too fast, but Claimant 75% to blame. On appeal by Claimant (as to contributory negligence) and cross-appeal by Defendant (as to primary liability), cross appeal dismissed and contributory negligence assessed at 1/3. (Ward, Lloyd, Kitchin LJJ)

• Barnes v The Scout Association, [2010] EWCA Civ 1476

  Court of Appeal

  Duty to be imposed on Youth Organization when playing games. Appeal by Defendant on the basis that Trial Judge had misdirected himself as to relevance of the social utility of the activity in which he found the Claimant had been injured. Permission granted on paper, but appeal dismissed (Ward & Smith LJJ, Jackson LJ dissenting).

• Robinson v Murphy v Gibson, HHJ Cawson (sitting as a Judge of the High Court), [2024] EWHC 798 (KBD)

  High Court

  Successfully represented FCILEx facing application for committal to prison for contempt of court after he signed a statement of truth confirming that a ghost passenger was sitting behind him in a taxi hit by the Defendant. 

• Juttla v FMX Food Merchants Import Export Co. Ltd & Pignatelli, Teare J. 16/12/08

  High Court

  Joinder of Defendant to action. Successful appeal by Claimant to join Second Defendant, a director in the First Defendant company, to the action qua employer when (uninsured) First Defendant purporting to admit Claimant’s employment status.

• Ward v Wooder, Silber J. 19/02/04:

  High Court

  Assessment of damages and costs in Low Velocity Impact claims. Successful appeal by Defendant against Order that Defendant pay Claimant’s assessed costs of action where Claimant recovered £500 for general damages in a liability disputed Low Velocity Impact case. Claimant’s damages reduced to £300 on appeal, with fixed costs of the action below. One of the first significant LVI cases.

• Cook v Southern Tyre Co Limited, HHJ Dudderidge, 6 & 10/9/24

  Personal Injury

  Successful claim for loss of leisure time by claimant who now works 48 hours per week as a postman rather than 36 hours as a manager.  Hearnshaw v English Steel Corporation Limited (1971) XI K.I.R. 306, CA applied.  Additional Smith v Manchester award made representing 3 months’ earnings.  Defendant’s allegations of fundamental dishonesty rejected. 

• re S (2015), unreported

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority

  Represented Applicant in CICA claim where childhood sexual abuse led to a life-time of psychiatric harm with concomitant effect on earning capacity, relationships and care requirements. Secured maximum available award (£500,000) whilst avoiding need for Applicant to undergo additional psychological assessments (which would, potentially, be damaging to her health).

• Lamb v Equity Red Star & Miller, DDJ Jones, 09/09/11

  Personal Injury/Insurance

  Liability of taxi driver to passengers. Successful claim by passenger in taxi (insured by First Defendant) which crashed when Second Defendant attacked the taxi driver after an altercation about the fare. Driver had falsely imprisoned his passengers in deciding to take them to a police station to resolve the dispute, and was in breach of his duty of care to the Claimant in attempting to continue his journey whilst being physically attacked by Second Defendant. One of the leading cases on the liability of taxi drivers to their passengers.

  more

• Shaida v Mughal v KGM Motor Insurance, Rec. Price QC OBE 25/08/10

  Personal Injury/Insurance

  Wasted Costs and Third Party Costs Orders. Successful application by the Third Party (the Claimant’s own RTA insurers) for indemnity costs against the Claimant, wasted costs against the Claimant’s solicitors and third party costs against the Claimant’s hire company, where Third Party joined to defend Counterclaim in circumstances where Claimant pursuing false claim in first instance.

• James v MANCAT, HHJ Armitage QC 3/03/09

  Disability Discrimination

  Instruction of experts under CPR35. Successful appeal by Defendant regarding need for Claimant (litigant in person) to pay towards the cost of joint Psychiatric evidence required to establish (a) whether the Claimant suffered from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and (b) whether the same constituted disability for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.