Simon O’Dwyer

Simon is a senior junior who has developed an extensive nationwide practice acting for defendants and their insurers. He has been recommended as a leading junior at the London Bar by the Legal 500 for a number of years.

He is instructed in high value cases involving injuries of the utmost severity. He has a wealth of experience of dealing with catastrophic injuries including traumatic brain injury, spinal injuries and polytrauma. Simon has extensive experience of claims involving mTBI, FND, CRPS and other chronic pain type conditions such as fibromyalgia along with conditions such as somatoform disorders. These cases often overlap with his considerable expertise in fraudulent, exaggerated or dishonest claims.

Simon routinely settles complex, forensic statements of case including high value counter schedules. His advice is frequently sought in difficult cases on issues of liability, procedure, limitation, causation and quantum. He routinely conducts conferences with leading medical experts across the full spectrum of specialisms. He has a reputation as an excellent trial advocate and is also known for his skill in negotiating preferential settlements at JSMs.

Selected Cases

Examples of his recent case load include:

• M v D – High Court EL claim, fracture of C2 and significant psychological pathology, liability disputed, orthopaedic, psychiatric and pain management expert evidence, Claimant represented by leading counsel. Claim settled at JSM.
• S v Z – RTA liability admitted claim pleaded in excess of £900,000. Seemingly minor trauma and significant concerns regarding exaggeration. Following service of counter-schedule alleging fundamental dishonesty, Claimant accepted costs inclusive offer of less than £100,000.
• A v A – RTA liability admitted claim pleaded in excess of £1m with orthopaedic, psychiatric and pain management experts. Successful application to adduce surveillance evidence before trial. Following the application the Claimant accepted a Part 36 offer 18 months out of time and defendant recovered costs of £150,000 enforceable against the settlement and claimant’s costs.

Simon has specialised in tackling dishonest and fraudulent claims for over 15 years. He has vast experience of the full spectrum of such claims ranging from mere exaggeration to outright conspiracy to defraud. He appeared in one of the first cases to be reported in which a finding of fundamental dishonesty was made back in 2015. Simon routinely deals with exaggeration, malingering, dishonesty and fraud in high value claims. Such cases often, but not exclusively, relate to claims where the pathology of injury is unclear or which are presented as chronic pain type cases often arising out of what seems to be innocuous trauma. He has an excellent understanding of the interaction between the typical medical disciplines which appear in such claims and how best to tactically defend such claims. He regularly advises on tactics surrounding surveillance including in respect of when and what type of surveillance should be undertaken and also when and how best it should be deployed. He is frequently instructed to draft pleadings of fraud and fundamental dishonesty. He has advised and appeared at trial in countless cases involving fraud in an RTA context such as phantom passenger, LVI, staged collisions, induced collisions and outright dishonesty allegations where no contact was actually made between vehicles. Simon also has considerable expertise in issues surrounding the dis-application of the Qualified One Way Costs Shifting regime on the basis of fundamental dishonesty both at trial and by way of operation of the Practice Direction to CPR 44 (12.4) where a claimant has discontinued in response to such allegations.

Selected Cases

Examples of recent work include:

• A v Allianz – Finding of fundamental dishonesty at trial on the basis that the claimant had staged an accident at work. Claimant ordered to pay defendant’s costs of the action. Subsequent High Court proceedings brought seeking a finding of contempt of Court.
• R v Allianz – Finding of fundamental dishonesty at trial on the basis that the claimant could not have suffered the injuries alleged in a low velocity RTA. Claimant ordered to pay defendant’s costs of the action.
• C v Allianz – Claimant discontinued claim with trial imminent. Defendant successfully applied to have the issue of fundamental dishonesty determined despite discontinuance. At the hearing the claim was found to be fundamentally dishonest and claimant ordered to pay defendant’s costs of the action.
• O v Allianz – Finding of fundamental dishonesty at trial on the basis that the claimant was not in the vehicle at the time of the collision and therefore could not have sustained injury. Claimant ordered to pay defendant’s costs of the action.

Simon is regarded as one of, if not, the leading practitioner in this area. Over the last decade he has been at the forefront of the development of the law in this area and has worked with many leading insurers in developing strategy in respect of such claims.

Simon regularly advises and provides representation in cases in which an abuse of process in accordance with the principles as set out in the case of Barry Cable v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited [2020] EWCA Civ 1015 is alleged. He has a comprehensive understanding of the issues and arguments in such cases and frequently obtains such findings at contested applications securing significant costs orders for defendants.

In 2021, he succeeded on appeal in the case of Yates v Pontes (Nottingham CC, HHJ Fine) in establishing that any application by a claimant to transfer a claim from the Part 8 stay procedure to Part 7 should be supported by the draft Part 7 statements of case to include an amended claim form, particulars of claim, a schedule of loss and the medical evidence upon which the claimant seeks to rely. Such documents are crucial in respect of the consideration of whether an abuse of process has occurred in circumstances whereby a claim has been stayed purportedly to allow the claimant to continue to comply with the low-value Protocol but then subsequently revalues the claim at an amount significantly in excess of the upper limit.

Simon also developed a strategy to deal with the problem of claims which become stagnant in the Protocol process and where there is a lack of progression by a claimant whilst the claim is languishing under a stay in Part 8 following the expiry of limitation. This culminated in the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of MH Site Services & Anor v James Watson [2025] EWCA Civ 775 in which Simon appeared as sole counsel for the successful appellants. The case is considered to be an incredibly important decision for insurers dealing with large volumes of such low value claims which are subject to extended periods of stay within Part 8. The Court of Appeal confirmed that there is a power to order further compliance with the Protocol and to make case management orders requiring claimants to progress claims within the Protocol.

Selected Cases

Examples of Simon’s recent work include:

MH Site Services & Anor v Watson type applications:

• B v M – Successful application for an unless order for claimant to provide Stage 2 settlement pack within 2 months. Claimant ordered to pay defendant’s costs of the application of £5,100.
• S v M – Successful application for an unless order for claimant to provide Stage 2 settlement pack within 4 months. Claimant ordered to pay defendant’s costs of the application of £3,000.

Cable v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd type applications:

• L v M – Successful contested application for finding of abuse of process. Claimant restricted to Portal costs for a period of 4 ½ years and ordered to pay defendant’s costs for period of stay.
• H v M – Following allegation of abuse of process, compromised application on the basis that the claimant would not recover any costs from date of accident to transfer to Part 7, a period of 7 ½ years of costs saved on standard basis.
• M v A – Following application for a finding of abuse of process, the application was compromised on the basis that the claimant’s costs to transfer would be restricted to Portal costs (4 ½ years) and claimant would pay defendant’s costs of the stay agreed at £5,500.
• O v A – Following application for a finding of abuse of process, compromised application on the basis that the claimant would be restricted to Portal costs up to date of transfer, a period of 3 ½ years and a saving of circa £50,000 of costs on the standard basis and would pay the defendant’s costs of the application of £4,700.
• C v T – Successful contested application for finding of abuse of process. Claimant ordered to pay defendant’s costs on the indemnity basis for a period of 8 years and the defendant’s costs of the application of £4,800.
• G v A – Successful contested application for a finding of abuse of process. Claimant restricted to Portal costs up to date of transfer, a period of 5 years saving against costs on the standard basis and claimant ordered to pay the defendant’s costs on the indemnity basis for a period of 2 ½ years.
• C v M – Successful application to strike out claim stayed in Part 8 on basis there was no reasonable grounds to bring the claim against the insurer alone under the 2002 Regulations. Insurer had successfully voided the policy and therefore claimant had no cause of action directly against the insurer and limitation had expired so claimant unable to add driver as additional defendant. Claim struck out and claimant ordered to pay defendant’s costs of £19,000. QUOCS disapplied.
• A v M – Following application for a finding of abuse of process, compromised application on the basis that the claimant would be restricted to Portal costs up to date of transfer, a saving of costs on the standard basis for 6 years.
• D v G – Successful application for a finding of abuse of process. Claimant ordered to pay defendant’s costs on the indemnity basis for a period of 5 years.
• M v M – Successful application for claimant’s costs to be restricted to Portal costs for the entire claim pursuant to CPR 45.35.
• P v Z – Successful application for a finding of abuse of process. Claimant restricted to Portal costs for 4 years and ordered to pay the defendant’s costs on the indemnity basis for a period of 1 year and the costs of the application.
• G v A – Successful application for a finding of abuse of process. Claimant restricted to Portal costs to date of transfer, a saving of 5 years costs on the standard basis and claimant ordered to pay the defendant’s costs on the indemnity basis for 3 years.
• J v M – Successful application to restrict claimant to Portal costs for entire claim. The claim had been stayed for 8 years and was only just commencing in Part 7 pleaded in excess of £500k. Defendant saved 8 years past costs on standard basis and all future costs. Saving conservatively estimated in excess of £300k.

In addition to his significant practice in costs arguments arising out of abuse of process in claims which no longer continue within the low value Protocols, Simon also enjoys a significant general costs practice dealing with interlocutory costs arguments and detailed assessments both in the County Court and SCCO.

Simon has extensive experience of providing representation for interested parties at inquests.

He is regularly instructed to conduct PIRs and multi-day inquests both before a coroner alone or also with a jury. He routinely deals with arguments regarding the scope of an inquest and whether Article 2 is engaged.