He is very responsive, thorough and a good tactician." "He is hugely reliable, very consistent with his advice and truly exceptional in his attention to detail.Chambers and Partners 2021
John receives instructions by public access across the range of areas of work that he undertakes. Anyone can now go directly to a barrister without having to involve anyone else (e.g. a solicitor) and this presents a cost effective and efficient approach to obtaining legal advice.
John provides advice on legal status or rights, drafts documents and can provide representation in court and at mediations. John can also negotiate on your behalf by telephone, at face-to-face joint settlement meetings, mediations and at court.
Assistance in pursuing claims via the Financial Ombudsman, the Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman & Local Government Ombudsman can also be provided.
Examples of public access work undertaken
I v Scottish Provident / Royal London Mutual Insurance Society – insurance coverage dispute concerning disability income benefit; claim successfully pursued through the FOS
P v Hospital & Medical Care Association – insurance coverage dispute regarding medical expenses insurance; claim successfully pursued through the FOS
Earls Court Properties v S – value & quality of building works undertaken
Sparrow v M – personal injury claim alleging damages for assault
Recent advisory work by way of public access has included:-
Edmunds v W.L. Vallance Ltd
High Court trial on liability and quantum with regard to an accident at work allegedly resulting in brain injury; acting for the defendant & the claim was dismissed
NIG v Hussain & others
Recovery claim pursuant to Monk v Warbey, Article 75, the Road Traffic Act 1988, s.151 and the MIB Uninsured Drivers Agreement
AAA by her litigation friend BBB v MIB & another
Settlement of £4 million plus interim payments of £357,725 for a brain injury sustained in an RTA when age 2 & age 21 on date of settlement.
XP v (1) Compensa Towarzystwo SA (2) Bejger
High Court trial relating to, inter alia, apportionment of damages following consecutive road traffic accidents, the first in Poland followed two years later by an accident in the UK.
Nusantara Energy Ltd v Healey
Breach of company director’s duties, director’s negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.
Jesmin v WH Smith Retail Holdings Ltd
Chronic pain claim for substantial damages dismissed after a trial and damages awarded for minor soft tissue injury.
UK Acorn Finance Limited v Vincent
Agricultural mortgages & a claim for Consumer Credit Act 1974, s.140B relief.
SWT Ltd v Hind & Steel
Issues concerning liability for trees by an occupier and the duty of care owed by a tree surgeon to third parties.
Bardsley v Dovehaven Nursing Home
Successful defence of a claim for negligent care by a nursing home.
D v CICA
CICA claim for a victim of child abuse resulting in brain injury and spastic quadriplegia.
Carmichael & Sons (Worcester) Ltd v NIG
Insurance indemnity claim successfully defended following a land slip.
Pilcher v Stan & Others
Advance fee fraud, freezing injunctions and recovery of 'money had & received'.
Ferguson v Ossett Brewery Pub Co Ltd
Nuisance claim concerning land slip and damage to neighbouring land.
If you would like to instruct John Meredith-Hardy 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.
Professional Negligence Bar Association
Personal Injury Bar Association
1987 MA (Hons) History & International Relations (St. Andrews)
1988 Diploma in Law (Central London)
Legal directories quotations:
“His attention to detail is fantastic and his advice on high-value claims is always sound.” Chambers UK
“Faultless in terms of his knowledge on motor policy coverage issues.” Chambers UK
“Once instructed he immerses himself completely in the case, considering all aspects so as to best advise.” Legal 500
“He is very responsive, thorough and a good tactician.” “He is hugely reliable, very consistent with his advice and truly exceptional in his attention to detail.”
“Very good technical counsel in relation to both specific laws and regulations and also figures, but marries that to very strong practical and pragmatic advice.”
“He is very thorough, hard-working and possesses an incisive intellect”
“He shows meticulous attention to detail”
“He has great attention to detail and makes sure no stone is unturned”
“He has an excellent legal mind, and a charming and natural rapport with clients”
“He is great on drilling down into the details, has a robust but sympathetic approach with clients and prepares excellent schedules of loss”