Skip to content

Simon O’Dwyer

Call 2010

Personal Injury

Simon practises exclusively in multi-track personal injury work acting on behalf of both claimants and defendants.

He has extensive experience of the full range of personal injury claims with particular expertise in respect of breach of duty in employer’s liability and claims arising out of serious road traffic accidents, including those culminating in claims for chronic pain; brain injury and spinal injury. Simon deals with significant value quantum cases with particular experience in large special damages claims for loss of earnings, prosthetics, accommodation and care.

He has developed a reputation as an excellent trial advocate often achieving success in difficult, borderline cases. As part of his court practice he routinely appears in both the County Court and High Court for interlocutory hearings such as CCMCs and application hearings, including interim payments.

Simon has vast experience of dealing with both liability and quantum experts and is always happy to assist in guiding such instructions at an early stage in a case. This often makes him a popular choice in more complicated causation and disputed quantum cases.

He has a particular specialism in cases involving chronic pain with an excellent understanding of the interaction between the various expert disciplines that regularly appear in such claims. He acts in cases concerning Complex Regional Pain Syndrome, Fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.

Selected Cases

Examples of his recent work include:

  • Led by Christopher Sharp Q.C in High Court Appeal concerning application of the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992;
  • Settlement of £222,000 in a workplace claim involving serious and complex injuries to the metatarsals in a 25 year old claimant;
  • Successfully appeared in an employer’s liability multi track trial on contributory negligence and achieved Judgment for the claimant on a 100% basis against an offer of a 90/10 split in the claimant’s favour;
  • He has recently appeared in two cases where the defendant insurer has sought strike out of the claimant’s case/refusal to lift a stay granted pursuant to the modified Part 8B procedure for claim which proceed in the Protocol for Low Value Claims but reach limitation prior to settlement citing the decision of Lyle v Allianz. On both occasions Simon has successfully resisted the applications.
  • Currently instructed in a claim valued in excess of £300,000 in which the claimant has developed Post Thrombotic Syndrome and faces lifetime risk of leg ulceration/amputation. Complicated issues regarding causation and provisional damages.
  • Settlement of £100,000 in a claim arising out of an accident in the workplace in which there was a significant dispute on causation and possible acceleration of pre-existing pathologies.
  • Currently instructed in a claim arising out of an accident in the workplace in which the claimant suffered traumatic amputation of the parts of the index, middle and ring fingers. Significant future losses claimed in excess of £500,000 and involves Touch Bionics I-Digit prosthetics.


Simon enjoys an extensive costs practice, regularly appearing in both the County Court and Senior Courts Costs Office.

Simon is often instructed in costs disputes where the principle of whether fixed costs or standard costs should be recoverable.

Selected Cases

He has particular expertise in more complex arguments surrounding the application of Qualified One Way Costs Shifting and has appeared in cases concerning:

  • Both pre and post 1st April 2013 CFAs in the same claim;
  • Termination of a pre 1st April 2013 CFA and subsequent entering of a post 1st April 2013 in respect of the same accident/claim;
  • Costs following acceptance of a Part 36 offer out of time;
  • Costs recovery by a successful defendant against a successful claimant in a multi defendant case;
  • Applications for strike out for abuse of process, claim disclosing no reasonable grounds and obstruction by the claimant or claimant’s representatives;
  • Applications for consideration of the issue of fundamental dishonesty following discontinuance by a claimant;
  • Fundamental dishonesty at trial;
  • Costs following failure to beat a defendant’s Part 36 offer at trial;
  • Counterclaims or Part 20 claims not involving a claim for personal injury;
  • Claims in which the date of retainer is unclear and the claimant has led the defendant to believe QUOCS does not apply by filing a notice of funding and or paying interim costs orders- question of estoppel.

Examples of such cases include:

  • Cases concerning the interaction between fixed costs and Part 36 (Broadhurst v Tan);
  • Cases where the defendant argues that the claimant should have commenced the claim in within the Protocol for Low Value Claims rather than by letter of claim ie. Unreasonably valued the claim in excess of the upper limit of £25,000;
  • Claims which settle prior to allocation having commenced in the Protocol for Low Value Claims but subsequently exited (Qader v Esure).
View full profile »


“Meticulous preparation – very thorough indeed. Very competent in procedural matters, a skillful advocate.”

Legal 500, 2024

Portfolio Builder


Select the practice areas that you would like to download or add to the portfolio

Download Add to portfolio
Portfolio close
Title Type CV Email

Remove All