- Manchester Grammar School
- Churchill College, Cambridge
- Inns of Court School of Law
- Head of Mini-Pupillage 2010-2016
- Accredited Pupillage Supervisor
- Northern Circuit
- Personal Injuries Bar Association
- Professional Negligence Bar Association
Instructed in equal measure by Claimants and Defendants, David Boyle has a thriving practice across a broad spectrum of complex, high value, high profile and unusual Multi Track claims. Always approachable, he has a particular appreciation of the need for clients to understand their litigation, no matter what the complexities, and has a reputation for both clarity and forensic rigour in both his written and oral advocacy. He is regularly instructed to appear at Joint Settlement Meetings and Mediations as well as trials, accepts instructions on a CFA or privately paid basis, is in demand giving seminars on all aspects of personal injury law, is a visiting lecturer at both Lancaster University and Liverpool John Moores University, and was Head of Mini-Pupillage at Deans Court from 2010 to 2016.
In 2014, he was invited to debate at the Cambridge Union, alongside Dr Matt Dyson, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, defeating a team consisting of both the Winner and losing Finalist from the European Debating Championship 2013.
His speaking engagements in 2017 have included The Grange Annual Conference (medico-legal psychiatry) and The Liverpool Law Society Occupational Disease Conference.
In 2016, he published his first book, On Experts, via www.lawbriefpublishing.com. His second book, An Introduction To Personal Injury Law, was published in 2017. He is currently working on his third (Case Management) and fourth (Forensic Thinking) both of which are due in 2018.
David is regularly instructed in fatal accident claims and injuries of the utmost severity. He has a particular expertise in accident reconstruction and cases of accidents abroad. He has specialised in civil fraud (both personal injury and policy related) litigation for over twenty years and undertakes all aspects of industrial disease work including mesothelioma and other asbestos-related conditions. His professional indemnity work covers both clinical negligence and solicitors’ negligence, the latter with particular regard to the conduct of personal injury claims. He has received repeat instructions from government departments, local authorities, supermarkets, bookmakers, travel companies and other well-known national companies and organizations, advising on litigation policies as well as individual cases. He has brought successful actions against the Home Office, Ministry of Defence and Health & Safety Executive and represents a number of high profile clients. His perceptive and analytical approach makes him the first port of call for non-standard cases.
Court of Appeal
Hamid v Khalid & Co-Operative Insurance Society General Insurance Limited  EWCA Civ 201
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  UKSC 58 applied); (2) An acquittal of fraud should only be displaced on the clearest of grounds (Akerhielm v De Mare  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  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)
Court of Appeal
Gray v Gibson  EWCA Civ 355
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)
Court of Appeal
West Midlands Travel Limited v Aviva Insurance UK Limited  EWCA Civ 887
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)
Court of Appeal
Mitchell et al v United Co-Operatives Limited,  EWCA Civ 348
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)
Court of Appeal
Smith v The Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire Police,  EWCA Civ 161
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)
Court of Appeal
Barnes v The Scout Association,  EWCA Civ 1476
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).
Juttla v FMX Food Merchants Import Export Co. Ltd & Pignatelli, Teare J. 16/12/08
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:
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.
Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority
re S (2015), unreported
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
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.
Shaida v Mughal v KGM Motor Insurance, Rec. Price QC OBE 25/08/10
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
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.
"Approachable, authoritative and very strong on paper." “Extremely practical, often coming up with solutions that make a real difference to clients' lives."Chambers and Partners, 2019
‘He has a wonderful ability to put clients at ease.’Legal 500, 2018
‘An excellent advocate.’Legal 500, 2017
'An expert in fatal accident claims.'Legal 500, 2016
'Provides tactically astute, detailed advice and is able to convey this simply'Legal 500, 2015
‘Recognised for his broad practice.’Legal 500, 2014
'Persuasive, friendly and approachable'Legal 500, 2013
'Has particular experience of personal injury claims'Legal 500, 2012
'A popular junior for high value claims.'Legal 500, 2011
'Recommended for high-value claims.'Legal 500, 2010
'Increasingly experienced in high-value claims.'Legal 500, 2009
‘Recommended’Legal 500, 2008
‘Strong, effective Counsel, kept very busy’Legal 500, 2006/2007