James Arney

Year of Call: 1992

jarney@tgchambers.com


Practice Areas


James Arney

Experience

Cited since 2009 in the Legal 500  for personal injury and costs, and previously as a “Leader of the Bar” in costs work in Chambers UK, James is frequently instructed in high-value multi-track litigation for both Claimants and Defendants.

Directories

Dual expert in personal injury and costs litigation with a hefty caseload relating to serious injuries and fatal accidents. He acts for both claimants and defendants and has notable experience in RTA cases. The pragmatic advice that he is able to provide in relation to quantum is much appreciated by sources.
Strengths: “Brilliant in joint settlement meetings and very strong tactically.” “A delightful opponent who is very good on costs.”
Chambers & Partners (personal injury) 2018

“A formidable advocate, who combines tenacity with charm.”
Legal 500 (personal injury) 2017

“…He has very impressive tactical nous and ability.”
Band 2 Legal 500 (personal injury) 2015

Cited as ‘Leader at the Bar’ in the field of costs
Chambers & Partners 2011 and 2012

Education

LLB (2:1) Bristol University

Professional Memberships

Personal Injury Bar Association
Bar Golfing Society

Public Access

Undertakes Public Access work

Hicks v Personal Representatives of Ionel Rostas (Deceased) & Motor Insurance Bureau (2017) QBD (Judge Reddihough) 17/03/2017 Lawtel 21/3/17

Acting on behalf of the Defendant insurers, James Arney successfully argued that notwithstanding delays in disclosing other surveillance footage until 2 months before a trial window, it was in the interest of justice to allow the Defendant to rely on footage disclosed 8 months previously, suggesting that the Claimant was significantly more capable than he had reported. The trial window, scheduled for just 5 weeks after the application was heard, was vacated in order to do justice in the case, and avoid potential overcompensation. The penalty for late disclosure was that only the claimant could rely on the later footage, as well as in costs.


Gilbert v Jagodic

Instructed by Irwin Mitchell, James Arney secured a £650,000 settlement on behalf of a 55 year-old care worker who sustained severe leg and ankle injuries in an RTA. The claim was originally pleaded at about £737,000, but increased to just over £900,000 following the discount rate change to -0.75%. Settlement negotiations proceeded expressly on the basis that the new discount rate be used without adjustment.


Knauer v The Ministry of Justice

A costs dispute arose following the conclusion of Knauer v The Ministry of Justice, the long-awaited case which provided the Supreme Court with an opportunity to correct Cookson v Knowles as to multipliers in fatal accident claims. Contested costs matters included the appellant’s entitlement to recover success fees at 100% notwithstanding the agreement between the parties that no trial costs would be recoverable, as well as a number of line by line issues. Instructed by Charles Lucas & Marshall, James Arney negotiated a satisfactory settlement on behalf of the appellant, consistent with the 100% uplift being recovered.


Rutter v Nichols

£800,000 settlement for a claimant who sustained multiple injuries when she, her friend and her sister were run down by a motorist.


James v Ireland [2015] EWHC 1259 (QB)

Successful costs appeal, establishing that a trial had not “commenced” for the purpose of triggering a 100% fixed uplift, despite the parties, their witnesses and advocates attending for 1.5 days on the date fixed for trial. Successive adjournment applications were found to have been merely procedural, and did not constitute a trial.


Garner v Lee

Defending a brain injury case pleaded at over £3m – settlement at just over £1.1m. This case also involved a contested cost budgeting dispute as to whether provision for representation by a silk ought to be made within the budget.


Purton v Aviva & Anr

£750,000 settlement secured shortly before trial for an ankle injury sustained by a high level chef. He had returned to work since the accident, including a role in which he was earning more than he had pre-accident. The award reflected his damaged career prospects, supported by expert employment evidence and in accordance with Ogden 7 principles.


Dau Chi Chong v Funafloat Ltd t/a College Cruisers, British Waterways Board [2013] EWCA Civ 212, 2013 WL 128677

After successfully defeating a £5m personal injury claim whilst acting alongside Andrew Prynne QC on behalf of the British Waterways Board, James Arney appeared in the Court of Appeal on related costs matters. Reversing the trial judge’s exercise of discretion, the Court of Appeal reinforced the general rule that costs should follow the event. Accordingly as between the defendants the defendant/Part 20 claimant must pay only the costs in the Part 20 claim, leaving both defendants to look directly to the (partly impecunious) claimant to meet the costs of the main action.


Raggett v The Society of Jesus Trust 1929 for Roman Catholic Purposes [2012] EWHC 3132 (QB)

14-day High Court trial on behalf of a former partner of a city solicitors firm who was sexually abused as a child at school. James’ role focussed on presenting the £4.5m quantum claim in the event that the claimant had been able to establish a causative link between the abuse and his subsequent professional failings as an adult. Ultimately that claim failed for reasons of medical causation, thereby restricting the value of the claim to more modest proportions commensurate with the injury suffered and treatment thereof. This claim is of significance in emphasising the difficulty in establishing a causative link between childhood abuse and subsequent personality traits.


TGC Costs Newsletter

17th May 2018

Please see link below to the latest TGC Costs Newsletter.


View External Link

When has a trial commenced pursuant to CPR 45?

20th May 2015

James Arney discusses the High Court judgment in James v Ireland which considers when a trial has commenced, so as to trigger an automatic entitlement to a 100% success fee.


View External Link

TGC Costs Newsletter

17th May 2018

Please see link below to the latest TGC Costs Newsletter.


View External Link

Co-director of flooring company recovers in excess of £100k for silicone sleeves and business class flights following collision with uninsured driver

17th October 2017

James Arney, instructed by City Lawyers, represented a 67 year-old small business owner who suffered multiple injuries when the uninsured defendant collided with his motorcycle.

On account of the claimant’s severe calf injuries and ongoing knee symptoms, James Arney successfully negotiated substantial allowances for the claimant’s silicone sleeve and business class flight claims.

Read more

Telematics resolves Liability Issue

15th August 2017

James Arney’s recent instructions from Horwich Farrelly illustrate the usefulness of telematics in RTAs, where there is contradictory witness evidence as to the positioning, movement and speed of vehicles involved.

Read more

Surveillance Evidence – delayed application did not constitute an ambush

17th March 2017

Acting on behalf of the Defendant insurers, James Arney successfully argued that notwithstanding delays in disclosing other surveillance footage until 2 months before a trial window, it was in the interest of justice to allow the Defendant to rely on footage disclosed 8 months previously, suggesting that the Claimant was significantly more capable than he had reported. The trial window, scheduled for just 5 weeks after the application was heard, was vacated in order to do justice in the case, and avoid potential overcompensation.  The penalty for late disclosure was that only the claimant could rely on the later footage, as well as in costs.

Read more

Settlement based on New Discount Rate

7th March 2017

Instructed by Irwin Mitchell, James Arney secured a £650,000 settlement on behalf of a 55 year-old care worker who sustained severe leg and ankle injuries in an RTA. The claim was originally pleaded at about £737,000, but increased to just over £900,000 following the discount rate change to -0.75%. Settlement negotiations proceeded expressly on the basis that the new discount rate be used without adjustment.


Knauer v The Ministry of Justice – settlement of the costs dispute.

13th December 2016

A costs dispute arose following the conclusion of Knauer v The Ministry of Justice, the long-awaited case which provided the Supreme Court with an opportunity to correct Cookson v Knowles as to multipliers in fatal accident claims. Contested costs matters included the appellant’s entitlement to recover success fees at 100% notwithstanding the agreement between the parties that no trial costs would be recoverable, as well as a number of line by line issues. Instructed by Charles Lucas & Marshall, James Arney negotiated a satisfactory settlement on behalf of the appellant, consistent with the 100% uplift being recovered.


Privacy Notice

Thank you for choosing to instruct me in your case. I will need to collect and hold your personal information in order to represent you. I might also need to collect and hold personal information of third parties. I will take all possible steps to protect your personal information, as well as that of third parties. I am determined to do nothing that would infringe your rights or undermine your trust.

This Privacy Notice describes the information I collect about you, how it is used and shared, and your rights regarding it. If you have any questions about how I collect and hold your personal information, please do not hesitate to contact me by email, at ja@tgchambers.com.

Data Controller

I am registered with the Information Commissioner’s Office (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, Temple, London EC4Y 9DA and my registration number is Z9836402.

Data Collection

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

The 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.
  • The legitimate interests of ourselves, 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; and
  • Reporting possible criminal acts or threats to public security.

My legal basis for processing your data and that of third parties are the following:

  • Your consent to have your data processed for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, representation or other legal services;
  • The processing is necessary for the performance of my contract with you, to provide legal services;
  • The processing is necessary for the compliance with legal obligations;
  • The legitimate interests of my practice as a barrister, to include:-

o   the administration of my business;

o   the provision of services to my client;

o   the need to maintain records for the purpose of potential complaints/legal action; and

o   the training of pupils/mini-pupils.

Some of the data I process is sensitive personal data. My legal basis for processing your sensitive personal data and that of third parties is that the processing is necessary for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims.

I use your information to:

  • Provide legal advice and representation;
  • Assist in training pupils and mini-pupils;
  • Investigate and address your concerns;
  • Investigate or address legal proceedings relating to your use of my services, or as otherwise allowed by applicable law.

I do 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;
  • Employment Records;
  • Medical Records;
  • Criminal Records;
  • Surveillance Footage;
  • Photographs.

I may share your personal data with:

  • Instructing solicitors;
  • Pupil or mini pupil, under my training;
  • My paralegal;
  • Opposing Counsel, for the purposes of resolving the case;
  • My 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; and
  • Any other party where I ask you and you consent to the sharing.

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 while you remain a client unless you ask me to delete it. My Retention and Disposal Policy (copy available on request) 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 claim or dispute;
  • I am legally required to; 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 I hold and what I use it for, you can ask for a copy of the personal information I hold about you, you can ask me to correct any inaccuracies with the personal data I hold, you can ask us 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 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 uses cookies to (for example):

  • Remember your user preferences and settings; and
  • Analyse site visits and trends.

For more details: http://tgchambers.com/privacy-policy/

I will occasionally update my Privacy Notice.

When I make significant changes, I will notify you of these via email. I will also publish the updated Notice on my website profile.