Michelle Marnham and future 3PB Pupil Jeremy Warner analyse MXX v A Secondary School  EWCA Civ 996, a case concerned with the grooming of a minor, in which the Court of Appeal clarified that work experience can be a relationship akin to employment for the purpose of vicarious liability. The Court confirmed the difficulty to satisfy the “close connection” test, which requires for the tort and the employment of the tortfeasor to be “inextricably woven”.
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.
Michelle has extensive experience in cases concerning staged accidents/RTA fraud and high value ‘malingering’ PI cases.
Michelle is Head of 3PB's Personal Injury group.
Personal Injury Areas of Expertise
- Abuse Claim
- 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
- G v. F. Instructed on behalf of Claimant who suffered life changing severe neck injury with the potential to make him tetraplegic: disruption of supraspinous and interspinous ligaments from C2 to C6, disc protrusions at C3-4 and C5-6. Liability agreed 50/50. Quantum in dispute, in particular Ogden Disability and future work capacity. Case settled at JSM in the excess of £2 million, prior to the 50% deduction.
- G. Instructed on behalf of the Claimant, who suffered significant head injury at the age of 17 months, now aged 17. Requiring expert evidence from experts in the fields of Neurosurgery, Neurology, Neuro-radiologist, Neuro-psychology, Neuro-psychiatry, Educational Psychology and Care and Occupational Therapy. Experts instructed on behalf of Claimant have identified long term symptoms and that the Claimant lacks capacity. Extent of injury in dispute with Defendant denying the extent of injury, capacity and restriction on earning capacity. Awaiting Approval of settlement in excess of 1 million pounds.
- Yv.C. Representing the Claimant who sustained significant injuries in a road traffic accident, including fibromyalgia, injury to her cervical and lumbar spine with chronic pain, and severe bilateral tinnitus. Injury and causation in dispute. Case proceeding in the High Court of Justice.
- B v. M. Instructed on behalf of Claimant who suffered a head injury, hearing loss, tinnitus and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder after being assaulted during the course of her employment. Liability and injury in dispute.
- E v D. Instructed on behalf of the Claimant who suffered significant injuries as a result of the road traffic accident, including 3mm parafalcine subdural haematoma causing a severe head injury, increasing risk, 10%, of suffering epilepsy. Also suffered psychological injuries. Claimant has required significant rehabilitation and has been medically retired. Future prognosis and return to work is guarded. Injury and quantum in dispute. Case proceeding in the High Court of Justice.
- Instructed on behalf of the the Claimant who suffered a traumatic brain injury and other significant injuries and now lacks capacity as a result of being run over by her ex-partner, who was subsequently convicted. Liability in dispute. Defence pleads of Ex Turpi Causa, Volenti and Contributory Negligence. Case listed for split trial. High value claim.
- Instructed on behalf of the Claimant in respect of a fatal accident claim arising from a Road Traffic Accident. Liability is in dispute. Awaiting approval of settlement.
- C. Instructed on behalf of Claimant who suffered a traumatic brain injury with psychiatric overlay as a result of a Road Traffic Accident. Complex issues on causation and impact that it has had on Claimant’s ability to return to work. Value of claim in excess of £300,000.
- F v S, Claimant suffered significant injuries including a left talar neck fracture and dislocation of the peroneal tendons and would require a fusion, a significant injury to his abdomen, that involved the loss of 2 inches of ileum from perforations and the removal of the sigmoid colon and an adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood. Quantum in dispute, including whether the Claimant was ‘Ogden Disabled’, the appropriate reduction factor and the Claimant’s likely career path ‘but for the accident’. Case settled at a JSM, heard via video link, in excess of £725,000.
- T v T and Aviva Insurance. Instructed on behalf of Second Defendant defending significant claim in respect of credit hire, claimed in the sum of £116,000. Judge accepted Michelle’s argument that the Claimant, whilst impecunious at date hire commenced, became pecunious during the hire period and failed to mitigate her loss. As a result the hire claim was reduced to 41% of the amount claimed.
- C v. Y. Instructed on behalf of Claimant, aged 18, who sustained significant and life threatening injuries when he was rendered quadriplegic at scene and underwent a C5 corpectomy. The Claimant has been left with permanent residual symptoms and career path altered, resulting in a catastrophic injury claim.
- F v. D. Instructed on behalf of Claimant who suffered a left hand crushing injury and developed CRPS requiring amputation of the limb. Catastrophic injury claim. Liability and quantum in dispute.
- T v. S. Instructed on behalf of Claimant suffered significant limb-threatening and life changing injuries as a result of the road traffic accident, resulting in a catastrophic injury claim. Liability and quantum in dispute.
- W v. Bam Nuttall Ltd. Instructed on behalf of Claimant who sustained significant injuries during the course of his employment. The Claimant’s injuries included left knee multiple ligament injury with PCL reconstruction, soft tissue injury to the left shoulder and Psychological injury – Adjustment Disorder, prolonged depressive reaction. Case complicated by reason that the Claimant suffered a previous severe traumatic brain injury and a mild organic personality disorder.
- M v. Ager and M. Instructed on behalf of Claimant who sustained life changing injuries as a result of a road traffic accident, including traumatic brain injury with permanent cognitive difficulties, personality change impaired balance and mobility. Claimant also suffered vertical squint and orthopaedic injuries. As a result of his injuries the Claimant lacks capacity.
- G v. C. Instructed on behalf of Claimant who developed mesothelioma based upon exposure during manufacturing employment.
- Ahmed v. Richards. Successful defending a claim with the Claim being dismissed for fundamental dishonesty and the consequent removal of QOCS protection.
- D v. Boots UK Limited. Michelle was instructed to represent the Claimant at a 2 day quantum only trial in which the Defendant had belatedly raised fundamentally dishonesty. Whilst FD was dropped at the doors of the Court the Defendant was still alleging exaggeration of symptoms. HHJ Berkeley found in favour of the Claimant on all aspects of Claim as advanced at trial and awarded Claimant damages in the region of £148,000. Claimant substantially beat a Part 36 offer that had been made on Michelle’s Advice and received benefits pursuant to CPR 36 but Michelle also obtained indemnity costs from the earlier date when the Defendant had raised the issue of Fundamentally Dishonest.
- S v. Gooch and Zenith Insurance. Instructed on behalf of the claimant, a professional musician, who suffered injuries in RTA, including a dystonic tremor of the upper limb, orthopaedic injuries and PTSD/Adjustment Disorder. Complex issues on causation and impact on occupation.
- B v. Selleck -Emery. Instructed on behalf of Claimant who was involved in a RTA whilst jogging. Liability in dispute. Claimant suffered significant injuries including fracture of the right tibia bone, requiring a skin graft, facial injuries – including dental injuries and scarring, head injury, discoid dermatitis and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
- Akande Nike v. Orsula. Instructed on behalf of the Claimant, a French National, in respect of her own personal injury claim and Fatal Accident Claim arising out of the death of her husband and two children in a road accident which occurred in England on M26. Claim raises complex jurisdictional issues as Defendant is Slovakian. Case settled at joint settlement meeting.
- Brown v. East Cheshire NHS Trust. Instructed on behalf of Claimant in respect of her claim for complex shoulder injuries, including Neurological thoracic outlet syndrome, sustained as a result of an injury at work. Causation and injury in dispute.
- R (a minor). Instructed on behalf of minor in relation to serious and complex injuries arising out of a road traffic accident. Complex causation issues in respect of brain injury, psychiatric injury and behavioural problems.
- B v. C. Instructed on behalf of Claimant who developed asbestosis. Case concerned issue of date of knowledge and limitation.
- Janjua v Lane. Instructed on behalf of Claimant in respect of complex ankle injury and psychological injury as a result of a road traffic accident whilst Claimant was riding a motor cycle. Liability in dispute. Case settled in excess of £300,000.
- Hudson v Wise. Case involved the complex issue on causation in relation to the Claimant’s Cervical Dystonia. Successfully negotiated.
- Davis v. X9. Instructed on behalf of the Claimant who suffered traumatic brain injury and trauma-induce blepharospasm in accident. Liability, causation and quantum in dispute.
- Brooker v. Akkeron Hotels Group Limited. Instructed at the last hour to represent the Claimant at a 2-day damages only trial involving dispute between orthopaedic and psychiatric experts as to the injuries sustained. Successfully recovered damages on all aspects of the claim.
- Robertson v. Gregory. Instructed on behalf of Claimant in respect of serious ankle injuries. Successfully negotiated.
- Hubbard v. Tissiman and Royal Sun Alliance, 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. 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 them 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 at 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
- X v. The Royal Parks Agency. 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. 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. 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.
- M v. C. Acted on behalf of Claimant who developed asbestos related disease as a result of husband’s exposure to asbestos in factory.
- 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. Involved detailed understanding of the cause of asbestos related disease and development of the disease.
A clarification of the “relationship akin to employment” and the “sufficiently close connection” tests in grooming cases5th Sep 2023
Causation and Divisible Injury, The ‘Rocks Of Uncertainty’29th Mar 2023
Michelle Marnham considers the case CNZ v Royal United Bath Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. A must-read case for those practising in clinical negligence and especially for those practising in birth injury cases. The case also provides useful guidance on material contribution and apportionment.
Barry v Ministry of Defence  EWHC 49 (KB)29th Mar 2023
Michelle Marnham analyses the case of Barry v Ministry of Defence  EWHC 49 (KB) in which Judge Johnson handed down judgment in relation to former marine Mr Barry’s claim that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) caused his noise-induced hearing loss. It is the first time judicial guidance has been expressly given on the reduction factors (other than mortality) since the revised guidance in the 8th edition of the Ogden tables were published in July 2020.
The Eighth Edition of the Ogden Tables18th Aug 2020
3PB's Michelle Marnham reviews the Eighth Edition of the Ogden Tables.
3PB's Personal Injury team provides legal update on Disclosure, Fraud, Fundamental Dishonesty and Contempt Proceedings18th Oct 2017
3PB's Personal Injury team provides legal update on Disclosure, Fraud, Fundamental Dishonesty and Contempt Proceedings
SUPREME COURTS DECISION IN KNAUER V MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,  UKSC 9 REVERSES THE LAW FOR CALCULATING QUANTUM IN FATAL ACCIDENT CLAIMS2nd Sep 2016
Michelle Marnham analyses the recent Supreme Court decision in Knauer v Ministry of Defence,  UKSC 9
When is a claim “brought” for the purpose of Limitation / Paying the Correct Court fee?14th Nov 2016
3PB's 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.
‘Michelle is pragmatic and provides sensible, realistic advice for clients.'
Legal 500 2024/Personal Injury, Industrial Disease and Insurance Fraud/ London Bar/ Leading Juniors
‘a leader in her field’
‘Michelle is knowledgeable both practically and technically, thorough, sympathetic and empathetic.'
Legal 500 2024/Personal Injury/Western Circuit/Leading Juniors
Practice head Michelle Marnham is ‘very skilled at building a rapport with clients‘ and has particular expertise in fatal accident claims, catastrophic injury cases and issues surrounding liability.
'Michelle is a good communicator with clients and provides practical advice. She is knowledgeable, approachable and responsive.'
Legal 500 2023/Personal Injury/Western Circuit
‘Michelle is always thorough and well-prepared.'
Legal 500 2023/Personal Injury/Leading Juniors/London Bar
‘She is proactive, extremely personable and quickly gets to the nub of the issue. She delivers advice clearly and concisely, in a way that is very easily digested by the lay client.’
Legal 500 2022/Personal Injury/Western Circuit
‘Michelle provides excellent advice and is alive to the strengths and weaknesses of a case.’
Legal 500 2022/Personal Injury/Leading Juniors/London Bar
‘A persuasive and effective advocate who is particularly skilled in dealing with claims involving complex issues.’
Legal 500 2021/Personal injury/Leading juniors/London Bar
‘Michelle is very good at identifying the key issues in personal injury claims and providing helpful and practical advice. She is a robust performer in court with a firm grasp of the key issues in a case and a realistic pragmatic approach to those issues.’
"Michelle Marnham is another key member of the team and has a particular interest in CRPS cases."
Legal 500 2021/ Personal injury/Leading juniors/Regional Bar/Western Circuit
‘She is diligent, personable and very thorough.'
Legal 500 2020/Personal injury/Leading juniors/London Bar
‘Performs excellently in court and in negotiations.’
Legal 500 2020/Personal injury/Leading juniors/Regional Bar/Western Circuit
‘She is terrific with clients and has a clear forensic understanding of legal and medical issues.'
Legal 500 2018/19/Personal injury/Leading juniors/London Bar
‘She is diligent and personable, with huge legal knowledge.
Legal 500 2017/Personal injury/Leading juniors/London Bar
"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)