Excellent results without fail, leaving me to continue instructing James, no matter where in the country.Louisa Bolleurs, Solicitor.
James conducted his first fraud trial in 2012 and has since been regularly instructed in cases involving both fraud and fundamental dishonesty. He acts exclusively for defendants and has obtained numerous declarations of fundamental dishonesty in both fast and multi-track cases involving: the Occupiers’ Liability Act; the Highways Act; Workplace Regulations; and RTAs.
He has dealt with cases including, but not limited to: fraud rings; staged collisions; vehicle occupancy; fictional or exaggerated injuries; and fraudulent credit hire claims. He has obtained declarations of fundamental dishonesty both by way of standalone applications and at the conclusion of trials.
James utilises both Part 18 and Part 35 questions in order to make the very best of any intelligence evidence gathered including: surveillance; social media entries; and pleadings and/or evidence relied upon by claimants in previous or simultaneous claims.
Further, James is well versed in respect of the best timing for the disclosure of intelligence evidence in order to maximise its potency whilst preserving its admissibility. In the case of Ivers v Tremain (2017) James (representing the defendant) was successful in a contested application to rely upon surveillance evidence. The case involved extensive legal argument in respect of the correct timing for the disclosure of such evidence.
In all personal injury cases James conducts a forensic analysis of a claimant’s medical records and, when applicable, uses Part 18 and Part 35 questions to exploit inconsistencies in the chronology upon which a claimant’s case relies.View full profile >>
Turkmen v 1 Davies 2 Another (2021)
For Defendant, instructed by BLM – claim for personal injury including credit hire in the sum of £120,000 – use of motor insurance databases and motor trade search data – defence drafted alleging fundamental dishonesty on the basis of a staged collision – claim discontinued – savings of £175,000 for insurer.
Goncalves v George (2020)
For Defendant, instructed by BLM - claim for personal injury - credit hire in the sum of £85,000 – defence drafted alleging fundamental dishonesty on the basis of a staged collision – claim discontinued – savings of £163,000 for insurer.
1 Morina 2 Quduss v 1 Other (2020)
For Defendant, instructed by BLM – claim for personal injury and credit hire in the sum of £257,000 - legal argument in respect of specific disclosure – claim discontinued – advising in respect of costs - savings of £340,000 for insurer.
Odewale v Tower Hamlets (2019)
For Defendant - claim for personal injury – fibromyalgia and myofascial pain syndrome - pleaded value £200,000 - defended on the basis of fundamental dishonesty - exaggerated injuries - trial - cross examination of psychiatric and orthopaedic Consultants – surveillance evidence - claim dismissed with declaration of fundamental dishonesty - enforceable costs order obtained - claim also referred to the Department for Work and Pensions for investigation - Claimant appeal - appeal dismissed.
H v B (2019)
For Defendant - claim for personal injury with a pleaded value in excess of £1,000,000 - neuropsychological and orthopaedic evidence - advising in respect of quantum - settlement.
Claimants v Virgin Atlantic Plc (2019)
For Defendant - six consolidated claims for personal injury – Costs and Case Management – expert evidence - parties’ costs budgets totalling in excess of £500,000.
Watters v Vision Labs Limited (2020)
For Defendant - personal injury - employer’s liability - drafting defence amended to include fundamental dishonesty on the basis of exaggerated injuries - surveillance evidence - trial - claim dismissed with declaration of fundamental dishonesty - enforceable costs order.
R v Ian Coombes (2020)
For Defendant - Causing Death by Careless Driving - Crown Court trial - cross examination of prosecution Forensic Collision Investigator - client acquitted.
Bath and North East Somerset v D1 Company D2 Individual (2019)
Health and Safety prosecution - for Second Defendant – Crown Court Trial - legal argument - Prosecution offer no evidence.
Goulding v Hurst-Brown (2018)
For Defendant – fundamental dishonesty alleged - trial - claim dismissed - declaration of fundamental dishonesty obtained pursuant to s.57 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 - QOCS disapplied - enforceable costs order.
(1) Lewis (2) Lewis (Estate of) v (1) Quereche (2) Metroline
High Court Trial – Fatal road traffic accident – Fatal Accidents Act 1976 – Law Reform (Misc.) Act 1934.
T v S (2017)
For Defendant - personal injury - claim totalling £600,000 - Post Traumatic Stress Disorder – complex loss of earnings – pension loss – claim totalling £600,000 – settlement at Joint Settlement Meeting.
Kelly v (1) Pigg (2) Aviva (2018)
Strike out on the basis of abuse of process – CPR 44.15(1)(c)(ii) - Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting disapplied – enforceable costs order against the claimant
R v Tomasz Kroker (2017)
Court of Appeal - four counts of Death by Dangerous Driving, fifth count of Causing Serious Injury by Dangerous Driving – Appeal before Sir Brian Leveson (President of the Queens Bench Division) – correct application of Sentencing Guidelines Council`s Definitive Guideline – finding that the sentencing Judge`s approach had been "entirely inconsistent to the proper approach to passing sentence".
Emin v Mostamand (2017)
Trial – Declaration of fundamental dishonesty obtained pursuant to CPR 44.16(1) – Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting disapplied – enforceable costs order against the claimant.
If you would like to instruct James Rozier or would like help or advice in doing so, please call and talk to our excellent clerking team, led by Chief Executive/Director of Clerking, Paul Cray. Our phone number is +44 (0)20 7583 9241. Alternatively, please email us at email@example.com
For more information about our clerking team, please click here for the clerks page.
“James has a no nonsense and professional approach, he is always well prepared, taking instructions from his solicitors early on so as to avoid any last minute preparations, leaving you to feel calm and confident in his ability. James has a personal yet professional and confident approach, triumphing in excellent results without fail, leaving me to continue instructing James, no matter where in the country.”
Louisa Bolleurs – Solicitor
“I have instructed James in the Employment Tribunals, Employment Appeals Tribunal and County Courts in employment related matters. I also instruct James to undertake a significant amount of drafting such as merits assessments, pleadings and applications. James has covered the entire range of Employment Tribunal hearings and has always dealt with my cases excellently. I will hence doubtless continue to instruct him into the future.”
Zahir Mohammed – Herefords Solicitors
“James is an invaluable resource who is regularly retained in fast and multi-track matters including credit hire, personal injury claims and appeals. He is an astute Barrister who is able to quickly identify key issues and is meticulous in his case preparation. He has a robust advocacy style which is cogent and compelling, and clients are consistently reassured by the quality of his work. Any Solicitor instructing James can do so safe in the knowledge that he will ensure the best possible outcome in a given case.”
Matthew Griffiths – AXA Insurance UK Plc
“Very knowledgeable and approachable, with a keen eye for detail. I always have full confidence that James will deal with cases efficiently and effectively.”
Rebecca Watt – Keoghs LLP
James has eclectic interests, ranging from surfing to what seems to be the perpetual restoration of a 1978 Triumph Spitfire 1500 which, we hear, now even starts.