Simon O’Dwyer

Personal Injury

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.

Abuse of Process

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.

Costs

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.

Selected Cases

Awards

Baron Dr Ver Heyden de Lancey Prize Middle Temple

Certificate of Honour (Middle Temple)

News

• CPR44.14: Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting – A Significant and Welcome Redressing of the Balance in Favour of Defendants
• Crown Office Chambers is delighted to announce the recruitment of Paul Higgins and Simon O’Dwyer

Articles

• CPR44.14: Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting – A Significant and Welcome Redressing of the Balance in Favour of Defendants
• Simon O’Dwyer succeeds on appeal against a refusal to make a finding of abuse of process and impose sanctions in accordance with the principles set out in Barry Cable v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited [2020] EWCA Civ 1015

Qualifications

LLB (Hons) University of Bristol

BVC (Outstanding) 1^st in Order of Merit

Harmsworth Scholarship Middle Temple

Kalisher Scholarship

Memberships

PIBA

Rankings