Richard Lynagh QC

Richard Lynagh QC

General Information

Appointed Recorder 2000
Appointed Assistant Boundary Commissioner 2000
Master of the Bench, Gray's Inn
Advocacy Trainer for Gray's Inn

 

Professional Guide

"unflappable and incredibly hard-working"
"unbeatable as a leader on big cases"
(Chambers & Partners, 2010 Edition)

"his diligent preparation has reaped dividends for his clients"
(Legal 500, 2008 Edition)

 

Practice

He has a wide-ranging civil practice which includes in particular insurance and reinsurance, professional indemnity, commercial litigation, professional negligence, personal injury, consumer protection and product liability.

 

Insurance

Recommended in the Legal 500

He advises and appears on behalf of both Claimants and Defendants.

He has regularly acted for a number of the leading insurers including AXA, CGNU, Zurich Municipal, NIG, Churchill and Liverpool & Victoria. He is also instructed on behalf of Lloyd's Underwriters.

He is retained in a very wide variety of cases involving an insurance element.

He has been instructed on behalf of the ABI itself in connection with issues arising out of the insolvency of insurance companies. 

His insurance practice frequently involves advice and litigation relating to policy coverage and the construction of policy wording; see for example:

  • Shinedean Ltd v Alldown Ltd and AXA [2006] 1 WLR 2696 is a significant case in which the Court of Appeal reviewed the law relating to a claims co-operation clause (construed as a condition precedent) and whether prejudice was an essential or relevant element before Insurers could refuse indemnity.
  • In Bankers Insurance Co Ltd. v South and Gardner [2004] Lloyd's Rep IR 1 he was instructed on behalf of Insurers in a case of a serious head injury arising out of the use of a Jet Ski. The case involved the issue of whether a jet ski fell within the definition of a waterborne craft and the consequences of a failure to notify Insurers of the incident. The obiter observations of the Court may also be of wider significance in the future interpretation of exclusion clauses in consumer contracts of insurance.
  • Mc Alpine v BAI (Run- Off) Ltd [2000] 1 Lloyd's Rep 437. This is a case in which the Court of Appeal considered the law in respect of the consequences of a breach by an insured of a notification requirement (construed as an innominate term) in a contract of insurance. 

He appeared in the case of Sowerby v Charlton [2006] PIQR P15 in which the Court of Appeal reviewed the law relating to admissions and CPR Part. 14.

He has acted for and against local authorities in cases involving highway design, construction and maintenance.

In 2003 he was instructed on behalf of the British Waterways Board in the T.C.C proceedings arising out of the collapse of a section of the Swansea Canal. 

He has been instructed by insurers in a variety of fire cases including welding and electrical fires and in particular a fire in the underground UPS cables of Citibank (Citybank v Lebihan).

In 2009 he was instructed in Verizon UK Ltd v Bowmer and Kirkland Ltd et al in a large claim in the TCC arising out of the alleged failure of the heating/cooling systems of commercial premises.

He has appeared for Defendants in the Crown Court in Health and Safety cases including prosecutions arising out of the escape of asbestos during demolition work, factory accidents and the management of a public swimming pool in which a fatality had occurred.

 

Professional Negligence

He has particular experience in cases involving allegations of negligence on the part of surveyors, estate agents, solicitors, barristers, accountants, insurance brokers, planning consultants and project managers.

He was instructed in the case of Lingfield Properties (Darlington) Ltd v Padgett Lavender Associates [2007] EWHC 2989 QB (Tugendhat J) which involved the defence of a town-planning consultant in respect of allegations of professional negligence arising out of the lapse of planning permission for a large retail park. The case raises interesting questions as to the extent of a professional's duties, limitation of actions and the award of costs on an indemnity basis.

He was instructed on behalf of loss adjusters accused of negligence in the placing of insurance cover for the American version of the television show "Who wants to be a Millionnaire?" (Goshawk v Buena Vista et al (2001))

He represented a planning consultant accused of negligence in connection with an application for planning permission for a petrol station in Motor Crown Petroleum Ltd v S J Berwin & Co and Unwin (1998)  (Longmore J)

Other reported cases have included the defence of surveyors accused of negligently over-valuing or mis-describing property. See for example Craneheath v York Montague [1994] 1 EGLR 35 and [1996] 1 EGLR 130 and McCullagh v Lane Fox [1994] 1 EGLR 48 and [1996] 1 EGLR 35.

He was instructed on behalf of syndicate auditors in the Lloyd's litigation.

 

Clinical Negligence

He has represented Claimants and Defendants, including the National Health Service Litigation Authority, in cases of clinical negligence including claims arising out of:

  • incorrect advice given in connection with amniocentesis;
  • unwanted birth;
  • alleged lack of informed consent to surgery;
  • failure to diagnose correctly in cases of cardiac disorder, glaucoma and myeloma;
  • failure to diagnose and alleviate compartment syndrome;
  • negligent management of heart-lung equipment during paediatric cardiac surgery;
  • anaesthetic accidents and
  • brain injuries sustained at birth.

Reported cases include Headford v Bristol & District Health Authority [1995] 1 Med LR 1.

 

Personal Injury

Recommended in the Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners

He is frequently instructed in fatal and serious personal injury claims on behalf of Claimants and Defendants.

In Uren v Corporate Leisure Ltd and MOD [2010] EWHC 46 QB he was retained on behalf of the First Defendants who provided and ran a series of competitive games of an "It's a Knock-Out" nature for a Health and Fun day at an RAF base. The Claimant suffered a broken neck when he dived into a shallow pool in the course of such a game. The case heard by Field J concerns the question of balancing the risk of injury involved against the benefits of the game itself.

In Frost v Oldfield [2010] EWHC 279 QB he represented the Claimant in an action arising out of a high speed collision between two motorcycles on the Cat and Fiddle road in Cheshire. The case heard by McCombe J turned largely upon the conflicting expert accident reconstruction evidence due to the lack of eye-witness evidence as to the collision itself.

In Darg v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Venson Public Sector Group Ltd [2009] EWHC 684 QB he was instructed on behalf of a Claimant who had sustained a relatively minor cut to a finger. There was a very significant medical dispute as to whether the cut had lead to carpal tunnel syndrome and subsequently to a seriously disabling complex regional pain syndrome.

In  Duncan v Acrabuild Ltd [2009] he was instructed to represent the Respondents in an appeal relating to alleged breaches of inter alia  The Construction (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1996 and head injuries sustained in a fall from a roof space. The Trial judge had dismissed the claim and the Claimant's appeal was withdrawn shortly before the hearing date

In Stevens v Allianz and Chaucer Syndicates [2008] he was instructed in arbitration proceedings relating to whether the pilot of a helicopter that had crashed killing the pilot and all passengers had flown recklessly and/or in breach of the relevant Air Regulations so that there would be no liability under the relevant insurance policy.

In another case he acted for the widow and dependants of a helicopter pilot killed in a crash following failure of the driveshaft to the tail rotor. The claim which raised issues of maintenance and flying skills was settled.

In the case of Alan Ide v ATB Sales [2008] EWCA Civ 424  and  [2007] EWHC 1667 QB (Gray J) he was instructed on behalf of a Claimant who had suffered serious head injuries in a fall from a mountain bike. The claim was brought under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and involved complex matters of metallurgy and issues relating to the discharge of the burden of proof in cases where there exist various alternative possible causes of an injury.

The hearing in the Court of Appeal raised issues as to the discharge by a Claimant of the burden of establishing causation in circumstances where there are alternative explanations for the loss advanced. The application of the House of Lords' ruling in The Popi M [1985] 1 WLR 948 (Rhesa shipping Co SA v Edmunds) was considered. 

He appeared on behalf of the Defendant in the case of Gleeson v Court [2007] EWHC 2397 (QB) in which the issue was the appropriate reduction to be made in the damages awarded to a Claimant who had been travelling unrestrained in the boot area of a hatchback car driven by an acquaintance who had been drinking. The case is interesting in view of the limited amount of previous authority on the question of the appropriate reduction in a passenger's damages when there are two such elements of contributory negligence.

He was instructed, both at first instance and in the Court of Appeal, on behalf of a coach company in a trial which involved consideration of the duty and standard of care applicable to the operation of a service for the transport of handicapped persons and questions relating to the scope of Road Traffic Act insurance cover:
Slater v Buckinghamshire County Council & Stigwood [2004] EWCA 1478 and [2004] EWHC 77 [QB] (Morland J).

He appeared in a trial involving the issue of whether a Premiership footballer's career had been ended solely as a result of a particular injury or whether pre-existing changes in the knee were a concurrent cause:
Southampton Leisure Holdings Plc v Avon Insurance (2004) (Curtis J).

He appeared for the Appellant in Thomas v Kostanjevic (2004) in which the Court of Appeal re-examined the respective obligations of motorists and pedestrians and the significance of the provisions of the Highway Code in running down actions.

He was instructed on behalf of a hotel in Barbados in respect of a claim for indemnity by a tour company in respect of a serious injury sustained by a British guest in a fall from a balcony. The case raised issues of inter alia, Bajan law and building standards and questions of jurisdiction and forum conveniens.

Other cases have involved issues such as the attributability of heroin addiction to a previous brain injury Wilson v Coulson [2002] PIQR P22 and the question of whether epilepsy was related to a head injury sustained in a road accident alternatively to underlying causes:
Lloyd v Norton Crane (2001) (Holland J).  

He is regularly instructed in road or industrial accident cases involving expert engineering and reconstruction evidence. Road traffic cases include Powell v Hansen [2001] AER 83 (Discussed at Para 9.57A of Binghams Motor Claims).

He was generic counsel instructed in the group action relating to the use of Benzodiazepines. See inter alia: AB v Wyeth [1992] 1 WLR 168, and acted on behalf of a number of the Claimants in the British Midland Air Crash case.

He has recently been retained in respect of a number of cases involving accidents abroad and has negotiated settlements in respect of cases in Jersey.

In 2010 he represented the Claimants in two trials in the Cayman Islands against the Attorney General.

 

Publications/Seminars

He regularly presents and chairs Chambers' nationwide seminars in his fields of practice.

 

Languages

Knowledge of German, French and Italian

 

Print Page | Request Word CV