Patrick Vincent

Barrister Profile

Patrick is a specialist in Personal Injury and Insurance Law. He acts for both Claimants and Defendants and is frequently instructed to defend claims on behalf of the MIB, Local Authorities and the NHSLA. He has particular experience and expertise in disputes involving scientific and technical issues. Patrick has regularly appeared in the Court of Appeal and is a contributor to Butterworths Professional Negligence Service. His primary areas of specialisation are: 

MIB / Road Traffic Act Claims
High value claims, policy construction issues and Article 75 points.
Damage to Property and Goods in Transit
Residential and Commercial fire/floods. Damage to goods in transit. Policy construction.
Occupational Diseases
Particularly stress/harassment, deafness and asbestos related diseases.
Highways Claims
Personal Injuries and Property Damage.
HSE Prosecutions
Acting for Defendant companies in the Crown and Magistrates Courts.

Patrick has regularly appeared in the Court of Appeal. He is based in London and Wiltshire and his interests include music (piano & guitar) the theatre and aviation.

Qualifications

BA (Hons) Bristol University
Diploma in Law (University of Westminster)

Professional Membership

Personal Injuries Bar Association
Professional Negligence Bar Association

Publications

Contributor: Butterworths Professional Negligence Service

Interesting Cases

Reid v PRP Architects [2006] EWCA Civ 119. Court of Appeal. An issue as to whether a lift not owned or maintained by an employer was work equipment within the meaning of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998.

Burke v Ashe Construction Limited [2004] PIQR P11. Court of Appeal. Concerning s.33 of the Limitation Act 1980 and its application in circumstances of a 4 year delay and questionable advice from successive advisors of the Claimant.

Williams v Devon County Council [2003] PIQR Q4. Court of Appeal. Concerning the recovery of benefits legislation in Personal Injury Claims and in particular the problems for Defendants in formulating effective Part 36 offers complying with the Social Security Legislation.

King v Sussex Ambulance NHS Trust [2002] ICR 1413. Court of Appeal. Concerning the Manual Handling Regulations in circumstances where an unsafe working practice is nevertheless the best that is reasonably practicable.

Ludlow v National Power PLC [2000] All ER (D) 1868. Court of Appeal. Concerning a Judge’s duty to give reasons. The judgment was approved as the basis for the decision in the later leading case on this issue, English v Emery Reimbold [2002] 1 WLR 2409.

Sniezek v Bundy (Letchworth) Ltd [2000] PIQR P213. Court of Appeal. Concerning sections 14 and 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 in circumstances where a Claimant has a strong belief in his own mind as to the cause of his injury despite a differing opinion from experts.

Coker v Barkland Cleaning Co Court of Appeal, 6th December 1999. Court of Appeal. Concerning the Court’s entitlement to interpolate between two fundamentally differing medical expert opinions as to an acceleration injury.

McKane v Corcoran Builers Ltd Court of Appeal, 15th January 1999. Court of Appeal. Concerning the proper tests for determining the safety of systems of work and work equipment on building sites.

Examples of recent court and advisory work include:

- Advising an Article 75 insurer as to the effect of co-existing “driving other vehicles” cover on another policy.
- A high value stress claim brought by a consultant psychiatrist.
- Construction of the GAFTA agreement in relation to a bulk shipment of cattle feed.
- Construction of the CPA standard terms & conditions in relation to a crane driver who may have been under the influence of drugs when he damaged a railway bridge.
- A high value claim in respect of sexual harassment/bullying in the workplace.