Arun is an experienced advocate specialising in personal injury. He is recommended in both the Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners as a leading junior in this field.
Arun acts for both Claimants and Defendants in high value multi-track cases, and is experienced in the full range of County and High Court trials, including claims involving fatality, chronic pain syndromes, serious spinal and brain injuries, and other forms of catastrophic injury.
Arun Katyar specialises solely in personal injury work, acting for both Claimants and Defendants in high value claims. He is experienced in the full range of County and High Court trials, including claims involving fatality, serious spinal and brain injuries, and other catastrophic injury.
He also regularly conducts negotiations at both round table meetings and mediations, 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 extensive experience of litigating difficult pain syndrome cases.
Arun regularly acts in cases involving multi-million pound claims for Complex Regional Pain and Chronic Pain Syndrome and associated disorders, including Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndromes, Functional Neurological Disorders as well as conditions of psychological genus, involving somatisation, Somatic Symptom Disorders, etc. He has lectured insurers and solicitors on chronic pain litigation and strategy.
He is often instructed in cases where there are elements of fraud, malingering and exaggeration.
Arun Katyar has developed a niche practice over the last decade dealing with claims involving intricate motor fraud rings, often with suspected connections to organised crime. He is instructed by all the main Defendant firms who undertake work in this area.
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, robust trial advocacy as well as the clarity of his drafting in document heavy cases.
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. His trial record is impeccable.
Arun also deals with more ‘mainstream’ fraud issues, and is well versed in running claims where malingering and exaggeration is suspected.
Arun has some experience of dealing with inquests, and in particular those involving railway level crossings.
Arun has recently advised on a cluster of such claims involving abuse by teachers against vulnerable pupils with learning difficulties.
Chambers & Partners 2019; “He is a solid, careful and attentive barrister.”
Ranked as a leading junior in the Legal 500 UK 2016; “He has the courage of his convictions.”
Legal 500 UK 2018; “Very safe pair of hands with immense experience in all types of personal injury.”
Legal 500 UK 2017; “He has superb knowledge of personal injury matters.”
Chambers & Partners 2018; “Has an impressive and encyclopaedic knowledge of personal injury law, procedure and tactics.” “Very good with clients and very reassuring. He prepares very thoroughly for cases and cuts to the chase.”
“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.
Alexis v. Newham London Borough Council (instructed by the Defendant)
 ICR 1517;  WLR (D) 186;  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.