Early in his career, Jack worked in the products liability department of Chadbourne & Parke LLP, New York, working on international tobacco and pharmaceuticals litigation. Since then, he has developed considerable experience in products cases, including group actions, in areas of medical devices, pharmaceuticals, mechanical and electrical components, motor vehicles, medical equipment, chemicals and foodstuffs. He works on cases of all levels of value and complexity, but thrives on the technical and scientific issues raised by the more complex cases, and adeptly assimilates the large volumes of technical documentation, which they entail. He also has extensive experience of conducting consultations with expert witnesses, cross-examining them in court and representing clients in settlement negotiations.
- Various Claimants v Zimmer – Represent defendant in group action brought by 85 claimants against manufacturer of metal-on-metal hip replacement devices. Case involves working as part of a team of Counsel, with specific responsibility for reviewing the facts of individual cases, including medical histories of claimants. Expert evidence is complex and extensive, and case raises novel issues on the proper interpretation of “defect” within the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
- Johnstone v Suzuki – Represented defendant motorbike manufacturer in claim arising from a serious accident in which catastrophic injuries were sustained when the claimant lost control of his motorbike. It was determined that the frame of the motorbike had fractured and split apart, and the principal issues were whether the crack was a fatigue crack or an impact crack, and whether the crack would have caused the loss of control described by the claimant. The case entailed complex expert evidence in engineering, accident reconstruction and metallurgy.
- Moore v Toyota – Successfully represented defendant car manufacturer in trial of claim relating to allegations of defects in a vehicle’s braking system. The trial involved conflicting engineering evidence as to the operation and efficiency of vehicle handbrakes.
- Owen v Bristol Myers Squibb – Acted for claimant in action against drug manufacturer and operator of clinical drug trial for inadequate screening process resulting in the claimant being included in a study for which he was unsuitable by reason of his medical history. Claimant developed cellulitis and osteomyelitis, with serious consequences.
- Patrick v Denny – Acted for defendant on complex quantum issues arising from a helicopter crash in which two high-earning self-employed businessmen lost their lives.
- Lindsay v EH Booth – Represented defendant in claim brought by a consumer who contracted listeria poisoning after consuming ox tongue purchased from the defendant’s store. Defendant went on to bring contribution claim against its supplier. Case entailed significant expert microbiological evidence.
- Beech v Argos – Represented claimant who sustained permanent injury to one eye caused by an explosion in a domestic air pump. The product in question was manufactured in Italy, and the case was complicated by cross jurisdictional issues.
- Camphill v BH Refrigeration – Represented defendant in claim for extensive property damage caused by fire arising from defective refrigeration equipment.
- Tarmac v Sprider Maskiner – Advised in case regarding contribution between the various parties involved in the design and operation of defective asphalt-laying machinery.
- Use of surveillance evidence in personal injury claims
- AB (a child) v Nottingham University Hospital NHS Trust
- London Common Law & Commercial Bar Association (1999 to present)
- Committee member of the Bar Human Rights Committee (2002 to present)