Michelle Marnham

Year of Call: 1994
Email Address: michelle.marnham@3pb.co.uk
Telephone: 020 7583 8055

Download Full CV Add to CV Shortlist

How to use the Shortlist tool?

Overview

Michelle is a Leading Junior with over 20 years experience, specialising in Personal Injury, Clinical Negligence and Construction law.  Michelle is recommended and well thought of when it comes to high-value complex disputes.

Michelle’s clients say she has a "charming personality" and a "sharp mind".  Her empathy and rapport with clients provides reassurance and confidence that their dispute will be resolved in a timely and cost effective way.  Michelle regularly contributes articles for Chamber’s newsletter and also welcomes writing enquiries for trade publications and client newsletters.

When not working, Michelle enjoys spending time with family and friends.  Her two daughters aged 16 and 7 enjoy their family skiing holidays, which fuels Michelle’s passion for skiing and keeping fit.

Expertise

  • Clinical Negligence
    Add this expertise to your shortlist

    Michelle’s clinical negligence practice, perfectly complements her personal injury and professional negligence practice.  Her reassuring, tactile and empathetic approach with clients in conference builds a strong rapport and confidence.  Michelle is an excellent advocate and excels in litigation and mediation and is highly praised for her written work.

    Clinical Negligence Areas of Expertise

    • Brain
    • Neo-Natal and Birth Defect Claims
    • Orthopaedic
    • Product Liability
  • Construction and engineering
    Add this expertise to your shortlist

    Michelle is instructed in disputes relating to professional negligence issues, in particular allegations of negligence against construction professionals, including structural engineers and architects.  Michelle has been involved in many contractual disputes between employer and contractor arising out of construction projects and in disputes with insurers arising out of building defects, advising and acting in litigation and mediation.

    • Building Defects
    • Contractual Disputes
    • Professional Negligence

    Her recent and current cases include the following:

    • Junior Counsel to Geraint Jones QC in multi-million pound litigation (successfully) defending allegations of commercial fraud arising from the collapse of the Versailles Group.
    • Acted for owner of commercial stadium concerning alleged defective construction of elevators with technical arguments over construction and claims for loss and expense.
    • Acted for architect in a dispute raising allegations of negligent design of extension.
    • Successfully defending Consulting civil and structural Engineers in a claim concerning alleged defective design and construction of extension.
    • Acting for property owners in respect of defective building works in relation to a Listed Building.
    • Successfully defending a Lift Construction Company in a claim concerning alleged defective installation and design.
  • Personal Injury
    Add this expertise to your shortlist

    Michelle specialises in personal injury with associated professional negligence and fatal accident claims.  Michelle is regularly instructed in cases with technical aspects on liability and in a wide variety of employers’ liability, Highways Act Claims and Road Traffic Accident claims.

    Personal Injury Areas of Expertise

    • Abuse Claim
    • Asbestos
    • Catastrophic Injury
    • Construction Site Accidents
    • Employers Liability
    • Fatal Accident Claims
    • Foreign Jurisdiction Claims
    • Highways Act Claim
    • Occupational Disease
    • Occupiers Liability
    • Professional Negligence
    • Product Liability
    • Psychological Injury
    • Public Liability
    • Road Traffic Accidents
    • Travel Claims
    • WRULD

    Recent cases 

    • Hubbard v Tissiman and Royal Sun Alliance [2011 -2015], Instructed on behalf of the Claimant who suffered injuries at the age of 16 in  a road accident.  Injuries include: open comminuted fracture of the right femur; complex Grade III A fracture, with delayed union; open fracture of the right tibia; multi-fragment injury to the right knee; and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.  C required a tibial osteotomy. Claimant will require a knee replacement at the age of 28-31 and revision at the age of 48-56.   Damages awarded in the sum of £716,000 at Joint Settlement Meeting.
    • J v. Thomas, M v Thomas [2015]. Instructed on behalf of two Claimants in respect of claims in damages for personal injuries and other losses they suffered as a consequence of historical sexual abuse perpetrated against then by their maternal grandfather when they were 3 –8 years of age.  Both Claimants were diagnosed as suffering Specified Trauma-and-stressor-Related Disorder (DSM-V 309.89) during childhood and continuing, Major Depressive Disorder (DSM-V 296.2);  and Panic Disorder (DSM-V 300.01).  It was successfully argued as the Assessment of Damages hearing that both Claimants had significantly underachieved at school and suffered a reduced earning capacity as a result.  The claim raised issues including whether aggravated damages was appropriate, the correct discount to be applied to the multiplier and the Claimants’ future capacity for work. Both Claimants were awarded in excess of £200,000.
    • Atkins v MIB [2012 – 2015]. Instructed on behalf of the Claimant who suffered significant injuries when aged 18, namely closed head injury, open fracture of the right humerus, multi ligament injury with fracture of the right knee [segond fracture] and fracture neck of fibula, Depression of Moderate Severity, Acrophobia with panic attacks. A liability admitted claim with complex issues in relation to quantum and earning capacity. Damages awarded in the sum of £244,000.
    • Cockayne [2015]. Acting for the Claimant in respect of his claim in damages arising out of the catastrophic failure of a hip implant manufactured by leading manufacturer.  Claim brought under the Consumer Protection Act 1987.  Liability denied. The central issue was whether there a ‘defect’ of the implant within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. The claim was successfully compromised.
    • B v Thomas Cook and Unlu [2015]. Acted for Part 20 Defendant, Turkish Hotelier, in respect of fatal accident claim brought by B in respect of the death of his wife whilst on holiday. The Claim was successfully defended by the Part 20 Defendant.
    • B v J Sainsbury PLC [2015]. Acting for the Claimant in respect of her claim in damages for personal injuries suffered as result of an armed robbery.  All aspects of the claim in dispute.  The claim was successfully compromised.
    • Whitmore v Sunrise Senior Living Limited [2014]. Acting for the Claimant who sustained personal injuries as a result of an assault by a resident which occurred during the course of her employment with the Defendant.  Liability for the assault was denied.   Issues of contributory negligence and causation were also raised.   The claim was successfully compromised.
    • Williams v. The Royal Parks Agency [2014]. Acting for the Claimant who suffered significant injury when he collided with unlit dark coloured bollard in a Royal Park. All aspects of the claim were disputed.  There were issues of liability, contributory negligence, causation and quantum. Liability was finally agreed 80/20 in favour of the Claimant and the claim was successfully compromised for an award of damages in excess of £100,000.
    • Chambers v. The Steel People [2014]. Acting for the Claimant who suffered significant injuries to his leg.  Successfully opposed Defendant’s application to resile from admission and claim was successfully compromised in excess of £350,000.
    • Sampson v Robore Cuts Limited [2013]. Acting for a 37 year old diamond driller who suffered a crushing injury to his left [dominant] hand leading to Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type II; Depressive Disorder; and an Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety.  Despite significant treatment to the left hand including neurolysis of the digital nerve and local flap to cover the nerve and also further surgery to bury the neuroma the Claimant continued to suffer pain in the hand with reduced grip and pinch strength. The Claimant underwent full implant of spinal cord stimulation which helped to reduce the pain.  The need the spinal chord implant Claimant was permanent and the Claimant suffered permanent neuropathic pain of the most severe form.  The claim was successfully compromised at a joint settlement meeting for a figure in excess of ½ million pounds.
    • Reddin v. May. Acted for Claimant, a minor, in a personal injury claim in respect of multiple injuries including head injury, personality change, fractured pelvis and psychological injuries.
    • Draycott v Drury. Acted for Claimant in respect of catastrophic injuries sustained in a road traffic accident.  Injuries included a traumatic below-knee amputation through the right leg, a traumatic amputation of the right arm, a significant brachial plexus injury and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder of moderate to severe type.  Damages awarded in excess of 1 million pounds.
    • Junior Counsel to Geraint Jones QC in multi-million pound litigation (successfully) defending allegations of commercial fraud arising from the collapse of the Versailles Group.
    • Junior Counsel to Colin Edelman QC in which they successfully acted for a large corporation (quoted on AIM) against a leading worldwide insurance group in respect of a dispute
      concerning a Public Liability Insurance Policy in the context of asbestos related disease.
    • Acted for owner of commercial building concerning alleged defective construction of elevators with technical arguments over construction and claims for loss and expense.
    • Acted for architect in a dispute raising allegations of negligent design of extension.
    • Successfully defending Consulting Civil and Structural Engineers in a claim concerning alleged defective design and construction of extension.

    Publications

    • 2nd Sep 2016

      Michelle Marnham analyses the recent Supreme Court decision in Knauer v Ministry of Defence, [2016] UKSC 9

      View Publication
    • 14th Nov 2016

      Michelle Marnham considers the question of when a claim is brought for the purpose of limitation following on from the recent decision of Dixon v Radley House Partnership.

      View Publication

Recommendations

"Michelle is superb with clients and always quickly grasps the salient legal and procedural issues on any instruction. She is diligent and personable with huge legal knowledge and skill in applying the law. Her skeleton arguments are something to behold". - Jeremy Hugo (Instructing Solicitor)

Academic qualifications

LLB Hons (University of Essex)

Professional bodies

Personal Injury Bar Association (PIBA)