Richard Methuen QC

Barrister Profile

Richard Methuen is a leading silk specialising in Personal Injury, Clinical Negligence, Professional Negligence and Sports Law.

He is recommended as a Leading Silk in the Legal 500 and in Chambers and Partners where he is described as "a superb operator with a direct approach."

Richard has a heavyweight personal injury practice. His strong specialist expertise particularly in the areas of brain injuries, spinal injuries, sports injuries and occupational disease is widely recognised. He is instructed on behalf of both Claimants and Defendants and regularly acts on behalf of most major insurers as well as the Motor Insurers’ Bureau.

Richard is highly regarded in Mediation both as an advocate and as a mediator. He is accredited by ADR Group and leads the 12 Mediation team at 12KBW.

He was Head of Chambers from 2000 to 2005.

Since 2001 Richard has been an Arbitrator appointed by the MIB to arbitrate claims under the Untraced Drivers Agreements. He was appointed a Recorder in 2002. He is also a member of the Ogden Committee and a committee member of PIBA.

Outside the legal arena, Richard is a fanatical sports follower.

Professional Membership

Personal Injuries Bar Association
Professional Negligence Bar Association
London Common Law and Commercial Bar Association

Interesting Cases

Sarwar v Ali (2007) EWHC 1255 (QB) – Lloyd Jones J – Claimant's preference for a lump sum - periodical payments ordered for care and earnings linked to indices other than RPI.
Taylor v Chesworth (2007) EWHC 1001 (QB) –  Ramsey J –  Claimant's preference for a lump sum - periodical payments ordered.
Shelton v Jones (November 2005) – instructed in what was then thought to be the largest ever personal injury settlement at £15m.
Thacker v Steeples and MIB (16 May 2005) Cox J – whether MIB a reasonably secure provider under the then new periodical payments regime.
Masterman-Lister v Jewell (2003) 1 WLR 1511 – Claimant who had compromised a personal injury claim 15 years before this trial sought to reopen it on the grounds of his mental capacity at the time of the compromise – Mental Health Act 1983 – definition of patient.
Smith v White Knight Laundry (2002) 1 WLR 616 – limitation – restoration of company – whether cause of action against dissolved company accrues only on order restoring company to the register.
Scutts v Metropolitan Police Commissioner (Court of Appeal May 2001) – duty of care owed by a police officer driving to an emergency.
Van Oudenhoven (2000) 1 WLR 1413 – multipliers - what is a very exceptional case justifying a lower discount than 2.5% - Hodgson v Trapp – Dutch Claimant subject to a harsher tax regime
O’Mahony v Joliffe (1999) PIQR P 149 - liability of MIB - when is a passenger using a vehicle.
Cassin v London Borough of Bexley (Court of Appeal February 1999) - liability of Highway Authority for removal of traffic signs on police instructions prior to a demonstration.
Wells v Wells (1999) 1AC 345 - House of Lords decision on multipliers.
Armstrong v British Coal (Court of Appeal July 1998) - test cases of VWF in the coal industry.
Sellen v Bailey (Court of Appeal January 1998) - insurers estopped from contesting a second action.
North East Shipyard Litigation - label given to a batch of test cases to determine the respective liabilities of shipyard employers on the one hand, and of the manufacturers/sprayers of asbestos on the other hand for asbestos-related diseases amongst workers in the North East shipyards. Instructed on behalf of Turner and Newell (third party manufacturer/sprayer). Achieved settlement on the day of trial (November 1997).
Gahan v Szerelmey (1996) 1 WLR 439 - dismissal for want of prosecution – financial prejudice.
Ping v Letraset (1992) PIQR P 74 - number of plaintiffs claiming work related upper limb disorders.
Matthews v Waltham Forest Health Authority (Pill J January 1991) - causation of cerebral palsy – birth asphyxia or genetically determined.
Pitts v Hunt and MIB (1991) 1 QB 24 – Pillion passenger encouraging motor cyclist to drive dangerously after both had been drinking together – what duty of care owed by rider to passenger – defences of ex turpi and volenti – whether a finding of 100% contribution sustainable.