0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Blake v Cottle, Taunton County Court, 1 June 2005

1 June 2005
The issues

Whiplash Injury – Whether Whiplash Injury In Fact Sustained

The facts

The Claimant suffered a road traffic accident on 21st November 1998. Liability was not disputed. The Claimant alleged that he suffered a whiplash injury and consequential psychological injury. He was a self employed builder. He alleged a substantial loss of profit of £100,000.00 (check this with James).

The Claimant and Defendant relied upon the report of an Orthopaedic Surgeon who was jointly instructed and a Psychiatrist. The Defendant relied upon the report of a Consultant Rheumatologist.

The decision

The Consultant Rheumatologist, Dr Hollingworth had analysed the onset of the alleged whiplash injury relying on a detailed examination of the Claimant’s medical records. His analysis was not consistent with the Claimant’s complaints post accident. In particular, the first reference to neck pain was 38 days post accident although that reference referred to the Claimant “still” having neck pain.

At Trial the Judge preferred the evidence of Mr Hollingworth to that of the Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon. Any injury that the Claimant had suffered in the road traffic accident was minor. The Claimant would be awarded £500.00 general damages for a blow to the knee and £30.00 for agreed special damages.

For further information with regard to this claim please contact Huw Hamill of 12 King’s Bench Walk, London on Hamill@12kbw.co.uk or Mr James Ruttledge on jamesruttledge@veitchpenny.co.uk.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up