Personal Injury Cases

Synopsis of Successful No Win No Fee Cases


AMAL Solicitors have recovered substantial compensation for clients who have suffered injury in all kinds of accidents. We pride on providing a high quality legal service no matter how serious the injury. Our commitment is to ensure that the needs of our clients are met by highly experienced Personal Injury solicitors. Below is a short list of our many successful cases.


Type of Claim: Road Traffic Accident
Claimant: Female Client (Driver)
Brief Description: The Claimant suffered neck and lower back injuries, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder with the risk of developing into Chronic Depression and Chronic Pain Syndrome. The Claimant was previously represented by another firm of solicitors who advised her to settle her claim at £5,000 based on the opinion of an orthopaedic expert who confirmed that she had a pre-existing medical history of neck and back pain and degenerative changes in her spine. Dissatisfied with the advice and service of her previous solicitors, the Claimant transferred her claim to AMAL Solicitors' Serious Injury team. Covert video surveillance evidence appeared to suggest that the Claimant appeared to be a person who was more capable and in less pain than she reported to the medical experts. The claim had serious litigation risks in addition to the possibility that the Court could make a finding that the Claimant was malingering. The claim raised complex medical issues with approximately 20 medical opinions obtained across experts in the field of orthopaedics, psychiatry, pain management and rheumatology. The claim required exceptional skill and wisdom in order to ensure success.
Settlement: The case successfully settled at a joint round table conference with the Claimant receiving over £98,000.


Type of Claim: Accident at Work (Health & Safety Prosecution)
Claimant: Male Client
Brief Description: The Claimant, a casual labourer of Eastern European origin, sustained multiple injuries, including severe head injuries. He had been engaged by a property owner with a group of labourers to undertake partial demolition of a detached house and construction of a large 3 storey extension. The Claimant is believed to have been working from an improvised working platform at a height of approximately 3.5 metres when part of a wall collapsed causing him to fall to the ground below and falling bricks/blocks etc landed on his head.

The property owner was prosecuted in his capacity as an employer by the Health and Safety Executive for breaches of the Health and Safety At Work Act 1974 and Work at Height Regulations 2005. Investigations revealed that the property owner did not hold any employer's liability insurance which could have compensated the Claimant. Whilst not a personal injury action per se, AMAL Solicitors made representations to the Health and Safety Executive on a pro bono basis on behalf of the Claimant, which resulting in the Health and Safety Executive securing a Compensation Order in the Crown Court of £90,000; the largest Compensation Order ever made by a Crown Court at the time.


Type of Claim: Carbon Monoxide Poisoning
Claimant: Female Client
Brief Description: The Claimant suffered minor brain damage and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a consequence of carbon monoxide poisoning. The Claimant and her spouse moved into temporary rental accommodation whilst contractors had been engaged to build a new house at the site of her residential property. The landlady of the rental property had subcontracted maintenance to a lettings and property management company which in turn had subcontracted service of gas appliances to an independent CORGI gas engineer. The Claimant collapsed unconscious as a result of carbon monoxide fumes which unknown to the Claimant's family were leaking from a central heating boiler. Investigations revealed that the central heating boiler had not been maintained adequately. The claim was originally contested and legal issues arose as to who was ultimately liable; the landlady, the property management company or the gas engineer.
Settlement: The claim succeeded with the Claimant awarded over £64,000.


Type of Claim: Accident at Work
Claimant: Male Client
Brief Description: The Claimant sustained a musculo-skeletal injury to his lower back as a result of slipping on a wet floor whilst at work. The Claimant's employer employed a relatively large ethnic workforce from less developed countries. The Claimant maintained a significant lower back disability which interfered with his ability to work and undertake tasks of daily domestic living. The claim raised complicated factual, medical and cultural issues. The evidence did not support the Claimant's disability and medical evidence raised considerable discrepancies in relation to the Claimant's injuries, life story, surveillance and inappropriate signs with strong psychological overlay to the level of physical disability. The insurer's medical experts doubted the Claimant's veracity by refusing to believe he had a disability and effectively considered him as a "liar" and "malinger". The insurer refused to make any offer to settle. The claim was defended with the insurer pleading a positive case of malingering and an allegation that the Claimant was fabricating his disability for financial gain.

The case was significant because the Claimant's credibility was at stake. Not only had the Claimant suffered injury as a result of his employer's negligence, the insurer's approach to the claim left the Claimant with no alternative but to prove his integrity. The case highlights how an exceptional ability to challenge unfavourable medical evidence, obtaining the right type of expert evidence and understanding the client and issues which may seem rather inappropriate on the surface can make a difference between winning the case and losing it. Neuropsychological evidence proved that the Claimant was a person of very low intelligence. Psychiatric evidence helped to prove that the Claimant was not malingering but suffering from an "Hysterical Conversion Disorder" such that the Claimant as a person of poor educational background, low IQ and originating from a culture that may appear primitive compared to the West was prone to suffer a worse psychological reaction to a physical injury which other medical experts may see as an unreasonable reaction or an exaggeration of symptoms to someone from a modern civilised society.
Settlement: The claim settled by agreement with the Claimant accepting the sum of £55,000.


Type of Claim: Accident at Work
Claimant: Male Client
Brief Description: The Claimant sustained spinal fractures of the right transverse processes of L1, L2 and L3 vertebrae when he fell from a height of approximately 10 feet whilst at work. The fractures healed satisfactorily but the Claimant continued to complain of disabling lower back symptoms. As a consequence of these symptoms, the Claimant received treatment in the form of physiotherapy and referral to a pain clinic where he received facet joint injections. Covert surveillance video evidence however demonstrated a level of capacity inconsistent with that described by the Claimant to any of the instructed medical experts, which undermined his veracity.

The claim was complex which required careful management to ensure success with detailed opinions from various experts in the field orthopaedic surgery, radiology, clinical psychology and pain management.
Settlement: The claim settled out of court with the Claimant accepting a total amount of just over £42,000.

Type of Claim: Accident at Work
Claimant: Male Client
Brief Description: The Claimant sustained deforming injuries to his non-dominant hand when a circular saw which he used during the course of his employment cut through his index and middle fingers. The Claimant was an illiterate immigrant who had not been provided with any health and safety training to use the circular saw. The employer had failed to report the accident to the Health and Safety Executive. The employer was subsequently prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive and fined £30,000.

The employer's insurer refused to offer more than £25,000 in compensation. The claim proceeded to Trial.
Settlement following Trial: The Trial Judge awarded the Claimant £42,000.


Type of Claim: Road Traffic Accident
Claimant: Male Client (Passenger)
Brief Description: The claim concerned a road traffic accident in which the Claimant sustained both physical and psychiatric injury. The injuries affected the Claimant's professional life and he experienced a significant impact upon his working life. The physical injuries comprised of a whiplash type injury to the neck and back which resolved within 15 months and a hyperabduction injury to the thumb which recovered within 8 weeks. Psychiatric evidence diagnosed a post traumatic stress disorder of moderate to severe intensity comprising of nightmares, anxiety, depression and reduced self-confidence. These symptoms significantly impacted on the Claimant's ability to run his business which in turn resulted in a loss to the value of the business.
Settlement: The claim settled out of court at £30,000.


Type of Claim: Industrial Injury (Repetitive Strain - Upper Limb Disorder)
Claimant: Male Client
Brief Description: The Claimant suffered an upper limb related disorder as a consequence of repetitive work whilst on a module line, engaged in the task of assembling timer units over a period of approximately 4 years. The Claimant was subsequently been diagnosed with De Quervain's Tenosynovitis which did not require surgical intervention.
Settlement: The Claimant accepted an out of court settlement of just under £25,000.


Type of Claim: Road Traffic Accident (Fraud)
Claimant: Male Client (Driver)
Brief Description: The Claimant sustained whiplash injury to his neck as a result of a road traffic accident when his vehicle was involved in a collision at a cross road junction. The Claimant held the benefit of a comprehensive motor policy and legal expense insurance. His legal expense insurer appointed solicitors to act on the Claimant's behalf. The Claimant's own insurer and the third party insurer doubted the bona fide nature of the accident. Both insurers liaised together to dispute the claim. The Claimant's legal expense insurer subsequently withdrew indemnity and their panel solicitors refused to continue to represent the Claimant.

The Claimant instructed AMAL Solicitors' Personal Injury team to take over his claim. Court proceedings were issued immediately. An offer to settle the claim was made under Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules which the third party insurer rejected. The insurer eventually conceded that it could not prove fraud. The claim was listed for Trial and on the last working day before the Trial, the insurer offered to accept the Claimant's Part 36 offer.
Settlement: The Claimant received short of £22,000 inclusive of enhanced interest agreed as a result of the insurer's late acceptance.


Type of Claim: Road Traffic Accident
Claimant: Female Client (Pedestrian)
Brief Description: The Claimant sustained a depressed fracture to her right knee which fully recovered in time and low mood for six months when an uninsured driver reversed without looking over his shoulder and hit the Claimant as she stepped off the pavement to cross the road.

The claim was pursued against the Motor Insurers' Bureau (MIB) under the Uninsured Driver's Agreement. The MIB sought to reduce the value of the Claimant's claim by 50% by alleging contributory negligence against her on the basis that she chose to cross the road at an unsafe location. That allegation was contested and the claim settled out of court.
Settlement: £11,500.


Type of Claim: Road Traffic Accident
Claimant: Male Client (Visually Impaired Pedestrian)
Brief Description: The Claimant sustained injury to his lower back when the third party driver reversed from a parked position as the Claimant stepped off the pavement to cross the road with the aid of a trained guide dog.
Settlement: The Claimant accepted an out of court settlement of £10,000.


Type of Claim: Road Traffic Accident (Fraud)
Claimant: Female Client (Passenger)
Brief Description: The Claimant who was unaware of any impending accident sustained whiplash injuries to her neck and back when her husband's motor vehicle pulled out from a side road without giving way and collided into an oncoming vehicle. The Defendant insurer refused to accept the Claimant's claim on the basis that the accident formed part of a much wider police investigation into staged, fraudulent accidents in Yorkshire which had resulted in the prosecution and conviction of two key individuals for perverting the course of justice.

The Claimant however maintained her innocence. A pragmatic approach was adopted by addressing the insurer's concerns of fraud head-on. Following the commencement of court proceedings, the insurer offered to settle the Claimant's claim.
Settlement: The Claimant accepted the insurer's offer of £2,750.