Arun Katyar

Areas of Work

Arun Katyar specialises solely in the area of personal injury. He is a busy senior junior, whose work is split approximately one third / two thirds as between claimant and defendant cases.

Arun accepts instructions in all claims within the multi-track, and is experienced in the full range of County and High Court trials, including claims involving fatality, brain injury and other catastrophic injury.

He has, through reputation, become a popular choice with many local authorities within London and the south east, dealing with all aspects of employer’s liability, road traffic, public liability and highways claims.

A significant proportion of Arun’s practice involves hearings relating to the assessment of damages. He also regularly conducts negotiations at both round table meetings and mediations. In the past 12 months he has successfully negotiated settlements in claims worth c. £500,000 to £3 million.

At trial, Arun is renowned for quickly getting to grips with complicated medico-legal issues, and is particularly adept at cross examining medical experts. He has a special interest in cases involving orthopaedic and psychiatric injury, and much experience of litigating difficult pain syndrome cases. He is often instructed in cases where there are elements of fraud, malingering and exaggeration.

Arun is regularly instructed by many different insurers in road traffic litigation where fraud is suspected. His experience extends to the full array of such claims involving staged, contrived and induced accidents, as well as bogus passenger claims and low velocity impact (delta V) arguments.

Within the last few years Arun has received numerous instructions in claims involving intricate motor fraud rings, with suspected connections to organised crime. He has advised from the earliest stages of such claims, including strategic advice as the rings have evolved, right through to the conclusion of the litigation. He is commended by clients for his forensic skills and attention to detail, as well as the clarity of his drafting in document heavy cases.

Qualifications

LL.B (Hons)

Professional Membership

Personal Injury Bar Association

Publications

“It's Just Not Cricket”; Ent. L.R. 1998, 9(5), 196-199
Legal remedies available to holiday makers following the abandonment / cancellation of a test match between England and the West Indies at Sabina Park - Package Travel Regulations - Contract.

Interesting Cases

Alexis v. Newham London Borough Council (instructed by the Defendant)
[2009] ICR 1517; [2009] WLR (D) 186; [2009] EWHC 1323 (QB)

Acted for a local education authority, sued by a teacher who claimed c. £700,000 in damages following a psychiatric injury after a poisoning incident at a school, that allegedly ended her teaching career. A pupil permitted unsupervised access to classroom, having been entrusted with keys by another staff member, used the opportunity to add whiteboard cleaning fluid to the Claimant’s water bottle. Issues arose in relation to foreseeability, and in particular the extent of the common law duty of care owed to teachers by the local authority. The case was successfully defended, it being held the local authority was not in breach of duty. It was absurd to suggest teachers should not have the discretion to ask pupils to pop along a corridor to get something from another classroom, and the staff member was not negligent in circumstances where she handed over keys to a pupil whose reliability there was no reason to doubt.

Fletcher v. Chief Const. of Surrey Police (instructed by the Defendant)

Acting on behalf of Surrey police in a serious brain injury and vision impairment case, brought by a young police officer who was injured in a serious RTA during the course of his employment. The officer was just at the outset of his career, having near completed his probationary period. Liability admitted but various arguments on quantum, including career model and loss of chance. The claim ultimately settled on a part lump sum / part periodical payment basis, with a capitalised value of c.£1.5 million.

Hills v. Rosen – (instructed by the Defendant)

Claimant allegedly sustained severe ankle injury, pleaded claim valued at circa £370,000. Video surveillance evidence and allegations of malingering advanced by Defendant. Contested orthopaedic evidence. Following cross-examination of the Claimant at trial, application made to accept monies in court (c. £70,000), leaving him to re-pay a small net sum to the Defendant and also to costs on an indemnity basis.