Deans Court Chambers

Expert legal advice and advocacy, delivered by an outstanding team of Queen’s Counsel and barristers.

The Barristers at Deans Court are regulated by the Bar Standards Board.

James Paterson

View All
James Paterson - Deans Court Chambers

Specialisms

Education

  • BA Hons (DUNELM) Geography with French and Spanish – Upper Second Class
  • MMU - GDL – Commendation
  • MMU – BVC - Very Competent

Appointments

  • Crown Counsel to the Falkland Islands

Professional Associations

  • Personal Injury Bar Association
  • Criminal Bar Association

Awards

  • Peter Rayburn Prize for finishing top of the year in Criminal Law on the GDL (MMU)
  • The Honourable Society of Middle Temple JJ Powell Prize for achievement on the BVC (MMU)
  • Richard Isaacson Memorial Scholarship Fund Nominee for finishing in the top 5 BVC candidates (MMU)

Profile

James joined Chambers after the successful completion of a common law pupillage under the supervision of Christopher Hudson (Crime/Regulatory) and Anthony Singh (Civil). His first few years of practice saw him gain experience in the criminal as well as the civil courts making him a well-rounded advocate. In 2011, James was appointed Acting Crown Counsel for the Attorney General of the Falkland Islands and South Georgia & The South Sandwich Islands territory. This entailed prosecuting all crime in the jurisdiction as well as acting in a general advisory role to the Falkland Islands’ government in legislative matters.

James specialises in personal injury, in particular fraud work where he regularly appears for Defendants on cases involving LVI, staged accidents, fraud rings and ghost passengers. He has a particular interest in QOCS exceptions arising out of these cases and has obtained enforceable costs orders in cases involving fundamental dishonesty and strike outs. James is also regularly instructed on cases where Defendants are running unreasonable exit from a portal. He accepts instructions in the personal injury field for both Claimants and Defendants for drafting, interlocutory hearings, conferences and trials.

On a more personal note, James has played professional water polo and is fluent in French and Spanish. He has also captained the Northern Circuit Rugby team and the 1st XV at his club.

Article:

Covid-19 & FD Trials

Notable Cases

  • Civil and Insurance Fraud

    ROGERS & ORS v PEARSON & ESURE

    Representing the Second Defendant in the defence of 4 claims by the Claimants alleging injury arising from a road traffic accident. The claims were all found to be fundamentally dishonest with DJ Khan in the County Court sitting at Worcester describing the claims as ‘as clear an example as I have known of claims which are fundamentally dishonest’.

  • Civil and Insurance Fraud

    SHAHZAD v TIDD & LV

    Representing the Defendants in a claim by the Claimant alleging injury arising from a road traffic accident. The claim was found to be fundamentally dishonest to include application of section 57. DDJ Mahmood sitting in the County Court at Bradford found that the Claimant knew he was not injured and pursued a claim regardless.

  • Civil and Insurance Fraud

    Fennel v Zurich

    Representing the Defendant in a claim by Claimant alleging injury arising from a road traffic accident. The claim was found to be fundamentally dishonest to include application of section 57. DJ Middleton sitting in the County Court at Truro found that the Claimant had given evidence about an alleged injury which he simply ‘cannot accept’.

  • Civil and Insurance Fraud

    Karim v Advantage

    Representing the Defendant in a claim by Claimant alleging injury arising from a road traffic accident. The claim was found to be fundamentally dishonest. DJ Etherington sitting in the County Court at Stoke-on-Trent found that the Claimant had fabricated a claim for injury noting that the Claimant’s evidence 'was entirely false in relation to injury and only being crafted so as to make a claim'.

  • Civil and Insurance Fraud

    Abbas & Others v Craven & Advantage Insurance Company Ltd

    Representing the Defendants in a claim by 3 Claimants involving allegations of 2 ghost passengers and LVI. The claims were all found to be fundamentally dishonest (‘FD’). DDJ Waite sitting in the County Court at Bradford found that the Second and Third Claimants were not in the vehicle driven by the First Claimant and not only had the First Claimant fraudulently supported their claims but was not, in fact, injured herself.

  • Civil and Insurance Fraud

    KANAGASABAY v BABINGTON

    Representing the Defendant in a claim by the Claimants alleging injury arising from a minor road traffic accident. The claim was found to be fundamentally dishonest (‘FD’). DJ Haisley sitting in the County Court at Manchester found that the Claimant had misled his expert notably by reference to his various social media profiles showing him cycling when he claimed he was unable to do so. The DJ concluded that 'the inconsistencies are so many and so significant in totality I am driven to find the claim is FD'.

  • Civil and Insurance Fraud

    MASTER JAKUB SIKORA & OTHERS V MS KIRSTIE HANSON

    Representing the Defendant in a claim by the Claimants alleging injury arising from a minor road traffic accident. The claims were found to be fundamentally dishonest (‘FD’). DDJ Masheder sitting in the County Court at Barnsley found that the accident was not capable of causing injury and the Claimants did not suffer any injury at all citing among his reasons for making a finding of FD that the Third Claimant in respect of her claim and that of the First Claimant (acting as her son’s litigation friend) was ‘making it up as she went along’.

  • Civil and Insurance Fraud

    Warren & Warren v Haley

    Representing the Defendant in a claim by the Claimants alleging injury arising from a minor road traffic accident. The First Claimant brought her own claim and a claim on behalf of the Second Claimant, her son, as his Litigation Friend. The claims were found to be fundamentally dishonest (‘FD’). DJ Dodsworth sitting in the County Court at Sunderland found that the Claimants did not suffer any injury at all citing among his reasons for making a finding of FD that the First Claimant did not take the Second Claimant to Hospital as she had alleged in her evidence.

  • Civil and Insurance Fraud

    Shahid v Tradewise

    In a remote trial, represented the Defendant Insurer in a claim by the driver of a Bus alleging injury arising from a minor road traffic accident. The claim was found to be fundamentally dishonest as although the accident was capable of causing injury the Claimant had given dishonest evidence in relation to alleged injury, in particular claiming to have been in severe and immediate pain contrary to what was shown by the footage from the Bus’s cameras. DJ Goodchild sitting in the County Court at Manchester found ’the claim and the evidence given dishonest’ and fundamentally so.

  • Civil and Insurance Fraud

    Lacatus v Esure Insurance Limited

    In a remote trial, represented the Defendant Insurer in a claim involving a road traffic accident. The claim was found to be fundamentally dishonest. DJ Foster sitting in the County Court at Bradford found that the contact between the vehicles was not capable of causing injury and rejected the Claimant’s assertion he was injured. In dismissing the case and making the finding of fundamental dishonesty the Learned Judge commented that there were ‘multiple untruths’ in the claim and he 'could not accept anything the Claimant says about his assertion of injury’.

  • Civil and Insurance Fraud

    SHARPELS V GAP HOLDINGS LIMITED

    Represented the Defendant in a claim for injury and various special damages arising from a road traffic accident in which breach of duty and causation were in dispute. The Court apportioned liability at 50:50 but went on to dismiss the claim in its entirety and make a finding of fundamentally dishonesty on the grounds that the Claimant had not suffered any injury at all despite his assertions of the same. In making the finding, DDJ Mawdsley, sitting at the County Court in St Helens, commented that whilst this was a genuine accident for which the Clamant was not entirely responsible, this is a dishonest claim for injury and it is fundamentally so.

  • Civil and Insurance Fraud

    Zajanckauskas v Aviva Insurance Limited

    Represented the Defendant in a claim involving a minor road traffic accident in which breach of duty and causation were in dispute. The Court found in favour of the Defendant on breach of duty and also made a finding that the claim was fundamentally dishonest on the grounds that not only was the accident not capable of causing injury but the Claimant was not, in fact, injured at all. In making the finding, DDJ Mahmood, sitting at the County Court in Bradford, commented that is was not a case in which the Claimant was exaggerating but a case in which he was ‘simply dishonest’.

  • Civil and Insurance Fraud

    Metcalfe v LV

    Representing the Defendant in a personal injury claim arising out of a minor road traffic accident. In a remote trial heard by CVP before HHJ Coe the claim was found to be fundamentally dishonest as the accident was not capable of causing injury and the Claimant had tried to attribute pre-existing symptoms to the accident ‘in hope of additional monies’.

  • Civil and Insurance Fraud

    Westmerland v Esure

    Representing the Defendant in a case in which the Claimant’s wife had told her insurance company (the Defendant) he was not injured. In making a finding of Fundamental Dishonesty HHJ Sephton QC commented that he was drawn to the conclusion, without any doubt, the Claimant did not suffer any significant injury and had come to Court to tell lies.

  • Civil and Insurance Fraud

    Chowdhury v Quinn

    Representing the Defendant/Respondent before the DCJ of Newcastle. Successfully opposed application for permission to appeal the decision of the lower Court to strike out a claim for failure to comply with CPR22 and the Practice Direction thereto pertaining to certificates of translation. The Appellate Court agreed the Learned Deputy District Judge had been correct to make a show cause order for wasted costs against the Claimant’s Solicitors and, alternatively, disapply the provisions of QOCS pursuant to CPR44.15(1)(a) and (c).

  • Civil and Insurance Fraud

    Thomas v Advantage Insurance

    Representing the Defendant in a causation case involving late notification of personal injury. Finding of Fundamental Dishonesty by HHJ Gargan (Designated Civil Judge for Cleveland and South Durham). The Learned Judge found that the Claimant was deliberately suppressing evidence when failing to report significant and relevant pre-existing medical conditions to the medical expert.

  • Civil and Insurance Fraud

    Saghir v Akhtar & Advantage Insurance

    Represented the Second Defendant in a causation case in which the Claimant was a passenger in a vehicle driven by her mother and brought a claim for personal injury against her mother and the insurance company some 25 months post accident. The Court, in making a finding of fundamental dishonesty, found that the Claimant’s alleged injuries were ‘complete fabrication’ and a ‘complete undermining of the Court system’.

  • Civil and Insurance Fraud

    Troy v ERS

    Representing the Defendant in a causation case involving CCTV evidence of the accident, a finding of Fundamental Dishonesty was made in respect of the claim on the basis of the District Judge concluding that the Claimant gave inconsistent accounts he must have known were wrong or known were not genuinely true when he gave them.

  • Civil and Insurance Fraud

    Inness v Bage

    Representing the Defendant, a finding of Fundamental Dishonesty was made against the Claimant in an LVI case in which it was found the Claimant had deliberately exaggerated the circumstances of a road traffic accident to pursue a dishonest personal injury claim. The Court found that the Claimant was not injured and that the severity of the contact between the two vehicles was such that he did not experience movement capable of causing injury. An enforceable costs order was made against the Claimant.

  • Civil and Insurance Fraud

    York v Forbes

    Representing the Defendant in a causation case involving late notification of personal injury. Finding of Fundamental Dishonesty by HHJ Gargan (Designated Civil Judge for Cleveland and South Durham). The Learned Judge rejected the Claimant’s evidence as being ‘wholly incredible and inconsistent’ and found he was ‘making up’ answers to account for the deficiencies in his evidence.

  • Civil & Insurance Fraud

    Williams v Manders & KGM Motor Insurance

    Representing the Defendants, a finding of fundamental dishonesty against the Claimant in a claim for personal injury arising out of a road traffic accident, in which the Court made a finding the Claimant was not genuinely injured.

  • Fithon v Highways Insurance

    A successful appeal to the High Court of a first instance decision at trial by HHJ Bird. The Learned Judge made findings that the Claimant had 'greatly exaggerated' his injuries but that that did not meet the hurdle for fundamental dishonesty ('FD'). The Honourable Mrs Justice Andrews in overturning the decision, making a finding of FD and stripping the Claimant of QOCS protection to costs here and below pursuant to CPR44.16 commented that the inference drawn from the finding of fact and the documents all go in one direction and that this is a dishonest exaggeration even if it was not a dishonest claim from the outset and on that finding section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 is engaged.

  • Civil and Insurance Fraud

    Adenuga v Zurich

    Representing the Defendant Insurer in a ghost passenger case in which the Claimant was found to be fundamentally dishonest in supporting the related passenger claims and each of the alleged passengers giving oral evidence were found to have lied about being in the vehicle at the time of the accident. The Claimant’s claim was dismissed pursuant to section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 and an enforceable costs order was made pursuant to CPR44.16 (QOCS exception).

  • Hyde v Castings Plc

    Advised on and ran to trial a case involving a Claimant who had brought multiple claims against his employer after having been sacked for dishonestly amending work documents amounting to gross misconduct. The Claimant discontinued at the doors of Court.

  • Civil and Insurance Fraud

    Dobson v ERS Syndicate Management Limited

    Representing the Defendant Insurer in a claim arising out of a road traffic accident where liability and causation were in issue. The District Judge made a finding that the claim was fundamentally dishonest and that the Claimant ‘was a liar from start to finish’. The Court made an enforceable costs order against the Claimant pursuant to CPR44.16 (exception to QOCS).

  • Civil Fraud

    Sawings v Nichols

    Representing the Defendant. Finding of Fundamental Dishonesty by the Court on Application post the Claimant's notice of discontinuance in a case involving transcripts of telephone calls in which the Claimant confirmed he was not injured or in pain at the time he alleged to be off work due to the severity of injuries allegedly sustained in the index accident. Enforceable costs orders pursuant to CPR44.16 were also obtained.

  • Hassan v Insure the Box

    Representing the Defendant, finding of Fundamental Dishonesty against the Claimant on Application to the Court in a case where a notice of discontinuance was served the day before a trial in a late intimation claim which included a recording of the Claimant threatening to claim for whiplash if the Defendant did not arrange for his vehicle to be repaired.

  • Mayne v Aviva

    Representing the Defendant, obtained a finding of Fundamental Dishonesty in respect of the claim on application at the conclusion of a trial where there was an entirely put to proof Defence as the Defendant's insured had died prior to notification of the case.

    The case was heard before the DCJ of Newcastle.

  • Personal Injury

    Calcina v Prestige Estates (North East) Limited

    For the Defendant in a case where the Claimant discontinued and the Defendant proceeded to obtain a finding of Fundamental Dishonesty on Application to the Court resulting in an enforceable costs order against the Claimant in a claim involving a workplace accident.

  • Personal Injury/RTA

    Korczynski v Garbrah

    Decision in favour of the Defendant before the Regional Costs Judge on an important point arising from the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents. It was held that the Claimant was not entitled to send the Stage 3 Court Proceedings Pack prior to the expiry of the total consideration period and the Defendant was at liberty to accept the Claimant's stage 2 offer at any stage during that period notwithstanding any lower counter-offer made.

    A full copy of the Judgement is available upon request.

  • Personal Injury/RTA

    Raza & Din v Liverpool Victoria

    Successful Defence of an LVI claim including a finding of fundamental dishonesty in a QOCS case leading to an enforceable costs order under CPR 44.16.

  • HCPC Regulatory matter

    Re JT

    Successfully kept Registrant on the Social Worker Register.

  • Personal Injury

    Fallon & Lemos v Bennett-Threlfall

    Successful strike out of a claim to which QOCS applied for the Defendant on procedural grounds leading to engagement of the QOCS exception under CPR44.15.

  • Regulatory

    R v Smith & Nicholas

    Prosecution Junior in the largest Regulatory Prosecution by Stoke-on-Trent City Council involving fraud and the Cattle Identification Regulations.

  • Occupiers Liability

    Hunter v San Marino Restaurant

    Successful defence in an Occupiers' Liability case involving the application of the Court of Appeal principles from Dawkins v Carnival Plc.

What the directories say

Boasts an impressive track record of achieving findings of fundamental dishonesty in a broad range of motor insurance fraud cases. He is routinely instructed by insurers for the defence of claims involving exaggerated injury, phantom passengers and staged accidents. "Experienced, knowledgeable and very approachable."

Chambers and Partners, 2021

"Affable with clients but forceful in court."

Chambers and Partners, 2020

Articles

More Articles

© 2021 Deans Court Chambers | All rights reserved