Ranked in Tier 1 for Personal Injury and clinical negligence – The Legal 500 (2021)
“Simon is the go-to barrister in the north for stress at work and psychiatric injury claims. He has a reputation as a trial barrister albeit my personal experience is that I have found opponents not wanting to litigate against him. His name helps to even out the fight with defendants and gives ordinarily problematic stress at work and psychiatric injury claims sufficient rigour and credibility.” – The Legal 500 (2021)
“Thorough and good on his feet.” – The Legal 500 (2020)
“Very good in a trial.” – The Legal 500 (2019)
“Very experienced in industrial disease and employers’ liability claims.” – The Legal 500 (2017)
“He provides clear advice, a robust approach and excellent cross-examination skills.” – The Legal 500 (2016)
Simon is a leading name in employers’ liability personal injury claims on the North Eastern Circuit. He is especially well regarded for his enthusiasm and proficiency in the niche discipline of occupational stress. Renowned as a fearless trial advocate, he has achieved successful outcomes in claims arising from psychiatric injuries caused by breaches of contract, bullying, discrimination, harassment (both s.26 Equality Act 2010 and Protection from Harassment Act 1997 claims), nervous shock, overwork and protected disclosures.
As well as psychiatric injury claims, Simon is known for his interest in chronic pain conditions that typically involve a psychological component, such as Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (C.R.P.S.), Fibromyalgia, Somatic Symptom Disorder, neuropathic pain and Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (M.E.). In particular, he has considerable experience of effectively adopting a multidisciplinary approach both to establishing and challenging chronic pain claims, including the identification of exaggerated or false claims.
“Very persuasive and effective.” – The Legal 500 (2015)
“A well-regarded industrial disease specialist.” – The Legal 500, 2014 (PI & clinical negligence).
The Legal 500 has described Simon as “A ferocious cross-examiner” (2014).
“An excellent advocate” with “an effective individual style” (2012).
Simon is popular with claimants and is noted for his excellent client care skills, particularly with individuals who have suffered life-altering psychological harm. Whether in conference or cross-examination, engaging with forensic psychiatric experts comes as second nature, as likewise does drafting high-value schedules of loss that span the remainder of a person’s working and pensionable life.
Having background in both personal injury and employment law makes Simon especially well-suited to advise on jurisdictional issues including limitation, alternative causes of action, cause of action and issue estoppel, damages and costs. As a training provider he delivers seminars for solicitors specialising in psychiatric injury litigation, and has hosted stress related health and safety courses for managers in the public sector and in industry. He is instructed nationally by leading disease firms.
Occupational stress aside, he has a strong practice in other disease claims including pulmonary and skin conditions, hand arm vibration syndrome (HAVS) and noise induced hearing loss (NIHL). For many years he successfully defended public liability housing, highways and occupiers’ claims. Simon is viewed as an expert on limitation in the context of personal injury litigation, and is naturally proficient in all areas of civil procedure.
Simon is a contributor to Butterworth’s Personal Injury Litigation Service and has his own dedicated stress website called The Stress Lawyer.
- Byron v Direct Interior Solutions  – Acted for the successful claimant in a Protection from Harassment Act 1997 bullying claim in which his Christian client was subjected to a mock crucifixion on the shop floor. Damages of £85,000 agreed.
- Carroll v Chief Constable GMP  – Appeared for the successful respondent on appeal in a complex occupational stress claim. This is the lead authority on the practical application of s.33 LA 1980.
- Dorey v CFBT Education Trust  – ‘First breakdown’ claim by an over worked Head Teacher. Settled for £100,000.
- Brzoskowska v Preston  – Serious femoral degloving injury arising from a road traffic accident. Damages of £200,000 agreed.
- Sajid v West Yorkshire Police  – Head injury resulting from a police motorcycle pursuit. Damages of £150,000 agreed.
- Rawnsley v Bradford College  – ‘First breakdown’ perceived bullying claim. Succeeded at trial. Damages of £160,000 awarded.
- Kelly v City of Bradford MDC  – Serious below the knee leg injury in consequence of a fall from step ladders. Damages of £200,000 agreed.
- Senior v Kennet  – Below the knee leg amputation caused by an excavator.
- Willgoose v Shepherd Engineering Ltd.  – Over worked construction project manager. Damages of £75,000 agreed.
- Thomas v University of Leeds  – Occupational stress claim relating to overbearing and inadequate management. Damages agreed.
- Morton v Suddaby  – Psychiatric injury resulting from assault by employer on work (retail) premises. Damages of £15,000 awarded.
- Reynolds v Leeds City Council  – Education support worker attacked by a truanting pupil leading to nervous shock. Damages of £120,000 agreed.
- Deans v Isand Ltd.  – Assault by a service user in an adult care home setting.
- Casey v West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority  – ‘First breakdown’ (perceived bullying) stress claim in which the Claimant later learned that he was the subject of private surveillance. Damages of £55,000 agreed.
- Singh v Habib  – Court of Appeal authority for the proposition that the Ladd v Marshall criteria need not be strictly applied where there is a public policy interest (i.e. allegations of fraud) in new evidence being admitted.
- Khan v City of Bradford MDC  – Stress claim arising from the breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence in which the Claimant had been placed under directed surveillance whilst on sick leave with a stress related complaint.
Simon may accept Public Access work, where he can be instructed directly by a member of the public rather than a solicitor.