Experience

Anthony specialises in Multi-Track matters involving a personal injury or fatal accident element. He has extensive experience of higher value litigation, having brokered favourable settlements in six and seven-figure claims on several occasions for both Claimants and Defendants. He regularly acts in cases involving complex medical evidence, including chronic pain, brain injury and mesothelioma claims. He is particularly well known for his expertise in insurance fraud litigation.

Directories

Recommended as a Leading Junior (Tier 1) in Personal Injury (Insurance Fraud) in the Legal 500 2017,  “A strong junior with an analytical approach”.

Education

MA Jurisprudence- Trinity College, University of Oxford

Professional Memberships

Personal Injury Bar Association
London Common Law and Commercial Bar Association
South Eastern Circuit

Hodgson v. Kinley

Anthony Johnson (instructed by Patrick Maguire of Silverbeck Rymer) acted for the successful Claimant in an appeal against a trial judge’s decision to dismiss a claim where it had been found that the Claimant sustained some injury in the index accident but some injury in a previous accident, and where the medical evidence did not distinguish between the two.

The basis of the decision at first instance had been that the Claimant could not prove that her injury was sustained in the index accident. HHJ Butler accepted that such an approach was illogical and contrary to law, and that instead the judge should have done her best to make some kind of ‘rough and ready’ assessment based upon whatever limited evidence was available. The fact that it was difficult to quantify damages was not the same thing as it being impossible.


Bourne Leisure v. Shakespeare Unreported

Anthony Johnson successfully represented the Respondent who had slipped on liquid that had been spilled on the dancefloor at the Defendant’s Butlins Bognor Regis resort. Butterfield J. upheld the trial judge’s decision that the Appellant was liable to the Respondent under section 2(2) of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 on account of the fact that the Defendant’s inspection regime was insufficient, and that the Defendant should have taken some steps, albeit minor ones that would not ruin the atmosphere in the venue, to enforce its policy of preventing guests from taking drinks onto the dancefloor given the obvious risk of spillage. He rejected the Appellant’s submissions that the trial judge had imposed too high a duty on the Defendant that was effectively a counsel of perfection, and that any reasonably practicable improvements to the Defendant’s system would not have made a difference in any event.


Lawrence v. Kent CC [2012] EWCA CIV 493 - Court of Appeal

Guidance given by Court of Appeal upon the approach appellate court should take to appeals on questions of contested fact determined by the Trial Judge as opposed to matters of discretion


Kent County Council v. Lawrence [2011] EWHC 1590

Anthony Johnson represented the Claimant in this appeal against a determination in her favour in a tripping claim brought under the Highways Act 1980. Eady J. held that the trial judge had not misunderstood the nature of the statutory duty and had not applied the wrong test, but that he had taken into account an irrelevant consideration, namely the subjective opinions of eye-witnesses about the danger posed by the defect. This aspect of the decision was subsequently overruled by the Court of Appeal.


Smith v. KRG Transport

Anthony Johnson represented the Defendant in the first appeal of this matter when HHJ Griggs overturned a District Judge’s decision that the Claimant had acted reasonably in mitigation of his losses by hiring a vehicle for 285 days in circumstances where he did not use the cheque that he eventually received from the Defendant’s insurers to replace his own accident-damaged vehicle.

Read more

Balls v. St. Edmundsbury Borough Council LTL: AC0122698

As far as the writer is aware, this is the only reported decision dealing with the interpretation of the definition of the term “highway” for the purposes of section 41 of the Highways Act 1980.


Hussain v. Dhawan LTL: AC0119878

Test case in which Anthony Johnson successfully resisted the Claimant’s claim for diminution in value on the basis that he had failed to make out his claim, in spite of the fact that an engineer had examined his vehicle and prepared a ‘diminution report’. The judgment discusses the considerations that apply to such claims in general.


Good v. De Klee LTL: AC0115494

The District Judge rejected the Claimant’s diminution claim on the basis that his ‘expert’ engineer had not actually examined the vehicle in question, and thus his report was based entirely upon theory and speculation. This was one of the first ‘modern’ reported cases dealing with a new wave of diminution in value claims.


TGC Fraud Newsletter Issue VI – September 2017

21st September 2017

Please see link below for Issue 6 of TGC Fraud Update, a publication we have set up with the stated aim of facilitating the sharing of information about decided claims involving issues of road traffic fraud and related matters.


View External Link

TGC Fraud Newsletter Issue V – May 2017

4th May 2017

Please see link below for Issue 5 of TGC Fraud Update, a publication we have set up with the stated aim of facilitating the sharing of information about decided claims involving issues of road traffic fraud and related matters.

 

TGC Fraud Newsletter Issue V


TGC Fraud Update v3 – June 2016

22nd June 2016

Stemming the tide of the fraud.
Please see link below for the third edition of TGC Fraud Update, a publication we have set up with the stated aim of facilitating the sharing of information about decided claims involving issues of road traffic fraud and related matters.


View External Link

TGC Fraud Update February 2016

3rd February 2016

Facing up to the challenge of fraud rings.
Please see link below for the second edition of TGC Fraud Update, a publication which was set up with the stated aim of facilitating the sharing of information about decided claims involving issues of road traffic fraud and related matters. Thank you also for all of the kind words and helpful feedback received about the inaugural edition.

 


View External Link

TGC Fraud Update

9th October 2015

Welcome to the inaugural edition of TGC Fraud Update, a new publication from the fraud team at Temple Garden Chambers containing a number of articles on legal matters relevant to insurance fraud practitioners and a digest of recent noteworthy cases in which Members of Chambers have been involved.


View External Link

“A Sword and A Shield- awards of exemplary damages in fraud cases”- New Law Journal

6th December 2013

This article comments upon the use of exemplary damages claims as another tool in the arsenal of Defendant insurers when faced with a fraudulent Claimant and considers some of the issues that commonly arise in such claims.


“Measuring loss: vehicle diminution claims”- New Law Journal

16th May 2008

This article concerns the principles that should be applied to the measure of loss in vehicle diminution matters, an area where claims are commonly presented, but where there has been only limited guidance from the higher courts.


TGC Fraud Update Issue V – May 2017

4th May 2017

TGC Fraud Update May 2017, a publication we have set up with the stated aim of facilitating the sharing of information about decided claims involving issues of road traffic fraud and related matters.

Read more

Severely Injured Claimant Recovers £1.14M

27th March 2017

Jonathan Watt-Pringle QC and Anthony Johnson (instructed by Richard Foyster of Ashtons Legal) represented the Claimant in this employer’s liability matter that settled for £1,425,000 on a 100% basis (£1,140,000 net of a previously agreed 80:20 liability split agreed between the parties) following a JSM attended by both Counsel.

Read more

Personal Injury Claim Settled for £230,000

20th December 2016

Anthony Johnson (instructed by Steven Akerman of Brian Barr Solicitors) represented the Claimant and Richard Wilkinson (instructed by John Lezemore of DWF LLP) the Defendant in this complex personal injury claim in which liability, causation and quantum were all heavily disputed. The matter eventually settled in the gross sum of £230,000 at a Joint Settlement Meeting that took place on 13th December 2016.

Read more

Personal Injury Claim Settled for £180,000

13th October 2016

Anthony Johnson (instructed by Richard Foyster of Ashtons) represented the Claimant and Sian Reeves (instructed by Francois Liebenberg of the Government Legal Department) the Defendant in this personal injury claim that arose from injuries sustained by a 35-year-old Traffic Examiner in the course of her employment with the Department for Transport. Liability was admitted soon after the accident and the matter eventually settled in the gross sum of £180,000 at a Joint Settlement Meeting that took place on 11th October 2016.

Read more

TGC Fraud Update v3 – June 2016

22nd June 2016

Stemming the tide of the fraud.

Please see link below for the third edition of TGC Fraud Update, a publication we have set up with the stated aim of facilitating the sharing of information about decided claims involving issues of road traffic fraud and related matters.


View External Link

Privacy Notice

Thank you for choosing to instruct me on your case. In order to be able to represent you, I will need to collect and hold some of your personal information. I will take all possible steps to protect your personal information. I am determined not to do anything that would infringe your rights or undermine your trust. This Privacy Notice describes the information that I may collect about you, how it is used and shared, and your rights in regards to it.

Data Controller

I am registered with the Office of the Information Commissioner (ICO) as a Data Controller for the personal data that I hold and process as a Barrister. My registered address is Temple Garden Chambers, 1 Harcourt Buildings, London EC4Y 9DA and my registration number is Z1400255.

Data Collection

The vast majority of the information that I hold about you is provided to or gathered in the course of your case and/or proceedings. Your solicitor and/or I will tell you why we need the information and how we will use it.

Lawful Basis for processing your information

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requires all organisations that process personal data to have a Lawful Basis for doing so. The Lawful Bases identified in the GDPR are:

  • Consent of the data subject;
  • Performance of a contract with the data subject or to take steps to enter into a contract;
  • Compliance with a legal obligation;
  • To protect the vital interests of a data subject or another person;
  • Performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller; and
  • The Legitimate Interests of myself, or a third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests, rights or freedoms of the data subject.

Examples of Legitimate Interests include:

  • Where the data subject is a client or in the service of the controller;
  • Transmission within a group of undertakings for internal administrative purposes;
  • Processing necessary to ensure network and information security, including preventing unauthorised access;
  • Processing for direct marketing purposes, or to prevent fraud;
  • Reporting possible criminal acts or threats to public security; and

Our Lawful Basis and our Legitimate Interest can include all of the above as appropriate, but will generally be consent, performance or facilitation of contract, or Legitimate Interests.

Some personal data is especially sensitive, so falls into special categories of personal data which require other Lawful Bases for processing. Medical records are in one such special category data. The special categories are data which reveals:

  • Racial or ethnic origin;
  • Political opinions;
  • Religious or philosophical beliefs;
  • Trade Union membership;
  • Data concerning health or sex life and sexual orientation; and
  • Genetic data or biometric data.

My lawful basis for processing any special categories of personal data (e.g. sensitive personal data such as medical records) is that the processing is necessary for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims.

I MAY use your information to:

  • Provide legal advice and representation;
  • Assist in training, including for pupils and mini-pupils (such trainees are always made aware of the strict duties of confidentiality applicable to legal work);
  • Investigate and address your concerns;
  • Communicate with you about news, updates and events;
  • Investigate or address legal proceedings relating to your use of my services/products, or as otherwise allowed by applicable law; and
  • Make statutory returns as required by HMRC or other bodies enabled by law.

AUTOMATED DECISION MAKING

I will not use automated decision-making in the processing of your personal data.

I collect and process both personal data and special categories of personal data as defined in the GDPR. This includes:

Client data

  • Name;
  • Email;
  • Phone number;
  • Address;
  • Payment or bank details;
  • Date of birth;
  • Location details;
  • Device IP address;
  • Financial information;
  • Medical Records; and
  • Criminal Records.

I may share your personal data with:

  • Instructing solicitors;
  • Pupil or mini pupils;
  • Opposing Counsel, for the purposes of resolving the case;
  • Chambers’ management and staff who provide administrative services;
  • My regulator or legal advisors in the event of a dispute or other legal matter;
  • Law enforcement officials, government authorities, or other third parties to meet our legal obligations;
  • Any other party where I ask you and you consent to the sharing;
  • A paralegal assistant providing administrative and note taking support to me; and
  • Experts or witnesses as required.

Transfers to third countries and international organisations

I do not transfer any personal data to third countries or international organisations.

I retain your personal data whilst you remain a client unless you ask me to delete it. My Data Retention & Disposal Policy details how long I hold data for and how I dispose of it when it no longer needs to be held. I will delete or anonymise your information at your request unless:

  • There is an unresolved issue, such as a claim or other dispute;
  • I am legally required to; and/or
  • There are overriding legitimate business interests, including but not limited to fraud prevention and protecting customers’ safety and security.

Your Rights

The General Data Protection Regulation gives you specific rights around your personal data. For example, you have to be informed about the information that I hold and what I use it for, you can ask for a copy of the personal information that I hold about you, you can ask me to correct any inaccuracies in the personal data that I hold, you can ask me and my Chambers to stop sending you direct mail, or Emails, or in some circumstances ask us to stop processing your details. Finally, if I do something irregular or improper with your personal data, you can seek compensation for any distress you are caused or loss you have incurred. You can find out more information from the ICO’s website http://ico.org.uk/for_the_public/personal_information and this is the organisation that you can complain to if you are unhappy with how I dealt with you.

Accessing and Correcting Your Information

You may request access to, correction of, or a copy of your information by contacting me in writing, either:

  • By Email, at aj@tgchambers.com; or
  • By post, at Temple Garden Chambers, 1 Harcourt Buildings, Temple, London EC4Y 9DA

Marketing Opt-Outs

You may opt out of receiving Emails and other messages from my Chambers by following the instructions in those messages.

Cookies

Cookies are small text files that are stored on your browser or device by websites, apps, online media, and advertisements. The Chambers website use cookies to:

  • Validate users;
  • Remember user preferences and settings;
  • Determine frequency of accessing our content;
  • Measure the effectiveness of advertising campaigns; and
  • Analyse site visits and trends.

I will occasionally update my Privacy Notice. When I make significant changes, I will also publish the updated Notice on my website.