He is approachable, clever and easy to work with. He gets excellent results and is very knowledgeable.Chambers UK 2022
Josh acts for defendants and has secured several findings of fundamental dishonesty. He has done so in cases ranging from invented events, exaggerated injuries, phantom passengers and LVI. He has obtained such findings across the board of injury claims and throughout road traffic, employers’ and public liability matters. He has achieved referrals to the Attorney-General for prosecution and in respect of contempt of court proceedings.
Josh has also been instructed on appeals in relation to the jurisdiction of the Appeal Court to infer dishonesty in reversal of the trial judge’s reluctance to do so.
Josh acts for property insurers in respect of fraudulent claims. He recently succeeded for a defendant in a claim where the insured had fabricated invoices for remedial works.
Josh’s probate practice has included 3 appearances in the High Court in respect of forged wills.View full profile >>
Perez v Savills UK Limited (2019)
Josh successfully defended Savills in a serious injury claim after a tenant fell from a gate as he attempted to climb over it in order to access his flat. The tenant sustained multiple injuries including several spinal fractures and a moderate traumatic brain injury. HHJ Baucher accepted all of Josh’s submissions; that there was no duty of care, no breach and no causation in light of the tenant’s decision to climb the gate, which was ‘reckless in the extreme’.
Jakimaviciute -v- (1) HM Coroner for Westminster (2) Stanevicience (2019)  10 WLUK 523
Josh was instructed as sole counsel in a three-day High Court trial relating to the jurisdiction of the Court to make directions for the disposal of a body. Josh was instructed by the elder of two sisters who disputed the ultimate resting place of their mother. Josh was successful and the deceased was released to Josh’s client forthwith. Following cross-examination, Mr Mark Cawson QC, sitting as Deputy High Court Judge, found that the youngest daughter was not a reliable witness. She was not on particularly good terms with the Deceased, which caused her to develop an ‘embittered frame of mind’. In turn, that frame of mind led to her swearing the false oath, whilst also herself raising allegations of fraud and impropriety without any credible evidence.
Santos v Metroline (2019)
Josh was instructed (on appeal) against a trial judge’s refusal to find fundamental dishonesty. At trial, the Judge had refused to find dishonesty because he could not be certain that no third-party claims company had been involved. Josh successfully submitted that the trial judge had misdirected himself as to the standard of proof in his requirement to be satisfied, to a certainty, that no third party had been involved. Further and in any event, HHJ Clarke agreed that it was perverse of the Judge to speculate as to whether or not a claims management company had been involved in the absence of any evidence. It was more perverse still to attach any weight to such involvement because it did not erode the dishonest evidence given by the Claimant in the witness box.
Re Morris (HHJ Simpkiss) (2019)
Josh represented the deceased’s daughters and sole beneficiaries of her estate. Their father claimed a constructive trust over the deceased’s property and also sought an award of reasonable financial provision pursuant to the 1975 Act. Following extensive cross-examination of the Claimant, the Judge found that the Claimant’s case “was littered with untruthful statements and with evidence designed to improve his case…” . Claim successfully defended in full.
Re K v A (2019)
Joshua represented the Defendant in a claim pleaded at £1.1 million following an accident at work in which a long drill bit penetrated the Claimant’s thoracic spine by over 20cm. The principal issue was loss of future earnings and the Claimant’s residual earning capacity. Liability was admitted and the claim settled for £185,000 following JSM.
Re Wright, (QBD) (2018)
Josh was instructed jointly by two defendants in a claim pleaded at £2.2 million following a devastating fire on a construction site. Primary liability was admitted and the matter proceeded solely in relation to contributory negligence and quantum. The case was a complex one involving a novel injury with dual experts in the fields of neurology, ENT surgery, psychiatry and speech and language therapy. The experts agreed that the Claimant had suffered a very rare clinical sub variant of laryngeal dystonia, although no expert was able to identify the mechanism of the disease. The Claimant sought damages for a permanent and disabling impediment to the production of his voice, together with lifelong injection therapy and loss of earnings. The matter was listed for trial in the Queen’s Bench Division but settled favourably at a pre-trial JSM.
Ashraf v Shah (Anthony Elleray QC, Chancery Division) (2018)
Joshua represented one of the defendants in a 10-day trial relating to the validity of a will, which covered a substantial property portfolio in Luton. The matter settled on the third day of trial following Joshua’s cross-examination of several of the Claimant’s witnesses.
Lomberg v Roszkowski, Gloucester & Cheltenham CC, HHJ Harington (2017)
Joshua represented the defendant in a claim for £250,000 following a road traffic accident. Liability was admitted but the dispute surrounded a substantial loss of earnings claim as the claimant imported unique Hungarian goods and was prevented from doing so as a result of a significant back injury. The defendant's orthopaedic surgeon was unable to attend trial but the court refused an application to adjourn and the matter proceeded with the claimant's orthopaedic surgeon in attendance only. Joshua cross-examined the claimant on the first day of trial and, by lunchtime, the claimant had taken the defendant's pre-trial offer of £20,000.
Carter v Walker, QBD (2016)
Joshua acted for the defendant in a fatals claim, the vast majority of which sought damages for an increased inheritance tax liability as the deceased passed within 7 years of substantial inter vivos transfers of shares to her son.
Re Fulton, QBD (2016)
Joshua was instructed as sole counsel for a principal contractor, one of three defendants, in a claim and contribution proceedings for over £1 million following a serious spinal injury during an extensive construction project. The matter settled favourably two days before the commencement of trial. Joshua's client took a significantly lower apportionment than the other two defendants.
Ashman v Thomas  EWHC 3806 (Ch)
An interesting case concerning the formal validity of three wills. Joshua successfully argued that the presumption of due execution upon regular attestation arose regardless of any suspicious circumstances, albeit the strength of the presumption may be affected by such circumstances. On the facts, two wills were found to be invalid but a first and earlier will was upheld. The decision on costs has attracted much commentary.
If you would like to instruct Joshua Hedgman 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.
Joshua Hedgman predominantly acts for defendants in high-value personal injury claims. He is skilled in cases involving complex issues surrounding causation or allegations of fundamental dishonesty. He is noted for his expertise in public liability and employers’ liability claims.
“He is approachable, clever and easy to work with. He gets excellent results and is very knowledgeable.” “Absolutely superb. He’s good to work with and very effective.” Chambers UK 2022
‘ Exceptional written work and a skilled advocate. ’ Legal 500 2022
Outside of the Bar, Joshua enjoys travel and theatre. He is a Governor of his former secondary school, Farnham Heath End School, and a lecturer in contract law on the Graduate Diploma in Law. He also examines for the leading A-level Law examination board.