Tagbo 2

Dr Tagbo Ilozue

Year of Call: 2019
Email Address: [email protected]
CJSM: [email protected]
Telephone: 01962 868884

Download Expertise CV Add Expertise to Shortlist Link In With Me

How to use the Shortlist tool?

Clerk Details

  • Clerk Name: Stuart Pringle
  • Clerk Telephone: 01962 868 884
  • Clerk Email: [email protected]

Overview

Tagbo Ilozue accepts instructions across a broad range of Chambers’ specialisms, with a particular interest in regulatory crime, inquests, personal injury, professional negligence, professional discipline, and public law.

He brings to his practice as a barrister the knowledge and experience that he gained working as a doctor in a variety of medical and surgical specialities. Before leaving his medical career, he completed the membership exams of both the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Physicians. He also holds a doctorate in Developmental Biology and a bachelor’s degree in Philosophy & Psychology.

Personal Injury

Tagbo Ilozue is a member of the 3PB Personal Injury Group. He has amassed considerable experience in Personal Injury, acting for claimants and defendants in multi-track, fast track and small claims, in stage 3 hearings and infant settlements, and in all manner of related preliminary and interlocutory hearings. He appears regularly in the county court and maintains a busy paperwork practice, drafting pleadings and advising in relation to liability, quantum, and procedure.

He has been instructed on cases involving:

  • Road traffic accidents
  • Credit hire
  • Employers’ liability
  • Public liability
  • Occupiers’ liability
  • Health and Safety regulations
  • Allegations of Fraud and Fundamental Dishonesty

Selected recent cases include:

  • Z v A: Advice and Schedule of loss (Employers’ liability)
    Advising a 36-year-old claimant on quantum and preparing a schedule for the permanent finger injury that he sustained in the course of his work, causing him disadvantage on the open labour market.
  • S v S: Multi-track trial
    Representing the claimant prison officer at Central London County Court in an employers’ liability claim for a permanent shoulder injury sustained during a fight between prisoners.
  • P v C: Advice and Particulars of Claim (Occupiers’ liability)
    Advising the claimant (on the prospects of success and on the appropriate defendant to name) and drafting the particulars of claim, in a claim for injuries sustained by a contractor who fell down an uncovered manhole shaft on premises managed by the defendant.
  • N v U: Fast track trial (RTA)
    Representing the defendant insurer in a claim from a pedestrian, defended on the basis that there was no contact between the insured’s vehicle and the claimant and the claim was fundamentally dishonest (Central London County Court).
  • R v W: Advice and Particulars of Claim (Occupiers’ liability)
    Advising the claimant on the defendants to pursue and drafting the particulars of claim for a multi-track claim arising from a knee injury sustained after a fall in a shopping centre.
  • K v B: Advice (RTA)
    Advising the claimant on liability and expert evidence in relation to an injury sustained after the sudden braking of a bus.
  • D v A: Fast Track (RTA and credit hire)
    Represented the defendant insurer in a claim (including £38,000 in credit hire fees) by a moped driver who accused the defendant’s insured of turning his car into the path of the claimant’s moped.

Tagbo is a member of the Personal Injuries Bar Association.

  • Articles

    • Non-party disclosure orders: the correct application of the test under CPR r.31.17(3)

      23rd Jun 2021

      Dr Tagbo Ilozue summarises Sparkes v London Pension Funds Authority and Leigh Academies Trust [2021] EWHC 1265 (QB), in which Murray J set aside a Master’s Order dismissing an application for non-party disclosure in a fatal mesothelioma claim. The Court saw fit to interfere with the Master’s broad case management discretion because he was wrong in his application of the test to the relevant facts, took into account irrelevant factors, gave insufficient weight to relevant factors, and failed to balance the relevant factors fairly in the scale.

      View Article
View Full CV
< >