“The breadth of Simon’s legal practice across civil and crime gives him an edge over others and he has the skill and incisiveness to cut through to the real issues. He also has excellent judgement and always looks to find a practical answer where there is a difficult issue to resolve. Add to that, he has a charming and pleasant manner both in and out of court.” The Legal 500 (2021)
“He is excellent.” Chambers and Partners (2021)
“A very good lawyer who can be trusted to do an excellent job.” The Legal 500 (2020)
“He is very good at the analysis, his written work is always excellent and his approach is very persuasive and pleasant.” – Chambers and Partners (2020)
“Composed and level-headed.” – The Legal 500 (2018)
“He is a very diligent and precise lawyer.” – The Legal 500 (2017)
Ranked a Tier 1 Junior by the Legal 500 (2024) and a Band 2 Junior by Chambers & Partners (2021)
Simon specialises in representing insurers in claims where fraud is suspected or explicitly alleged. He also undertakes contempt proceedings on behalf of insurers when cases are of such gravity that a prison sentence should follow.
His multi-track fraud work includes road traffic claims, employer liability, travel sickness and occupier liability. Simon regularly acts in high-value credit high litigation and also in complex fraud-ring cases. Simon’s caseload also includes operations in which hire companies and claims management companies are added to proceedings. Examples include:
EUI v Globenet – Simon acted for EUI (Admiral) in a fraud ring consisting of 367 parties and 136 policies which were incepted fraudulently. The claims were defeated in a succession of trials and proceedings were ultimately brought against a claim management company which had featured repeatedly in the litigation. A positive finding of fraud was made against the management company which had paid money to participants on both sides of the ‘accidents’. The Court imposed the highest ever award of exemplary damages in a road traffic insurance fraud case.
Z v EUI – Multiple collisions and claims were consolidated on the basis that they bore strikingly similar circumstances and links between the parties. A number of innocent motorists were targeted on busy slip-roads upon which claimants would execute sudden and dangerous braking manoeuvres in order to induce collisions. Findings of fraud were made and costs orders followed.
Examples of his Contempt proceedings in the High Court include:
Parmar – a wholly fictitious accident involving a claimant who asserted in a County Court trial that he was injured and suffered extensive vehicle damage. With the police and CPS declining involvement the insurer undertook contempt proceedings and the High Court imposed a sentence of 12 months imprisonment.
Dodds – one of the parties to a contrived collision confessed to an insurer that the alleged accident did not happen. Instead, a group of men had met in a car park and deliberately collided the vehicles into one another then used a crow-bar to aggravate the damage. The High Court imposed sentences of 6 months and 4 months imprisonment upon the men who launched false claims.
Bilal – the claimant to a personal injury claim was a paralegal in the government legal department and a trainee solicitor. The insurer learned that the claimant’s legal career included representing the person who had allegedly collided into him causing an accident. After a three-day hearing the High Court found the parties were linked and had conspired to bring fraudulent claims. A sentence of 8 months imprisonment followed.