- All Barristers
- James Hogg
James accepts instructions in all areas of Civil law, with a particular emphasis on Personal Injury litigation involving allegations of dishonesty.
His Personal Injury work encompasses RTA claims, Public and Employers’ liability actions (including industrial disease, stress at work and harassment cases), and Occupiers’ liability claims.
James is regularly instructed on behalf of several national insurers in suspected fraudulent road traffic accidents (whether staged, phantom passenger or LVI), fraudulent employers and public liability claims, and in credit hire litigation.
A growing area of his practice concerns fraud rings and costs recovery against solicitors, ATE providers and other non-parties.
James appears on behalf of both Claimants and Defendants, both on and off circuit, and is happy to consider Claimant work on a CFA basis. He is regularly instructed in Multi Track litigation and has experience of High Court work.
James also has experience of CICA and CRU appeals and has been instructed at several Coroner’s Inquests.
“His attention to detail is like no other and his forensic approach to cases always leads to excellent outcomes.”
Chambers & Partners 2024
Notable Cases
-
Mr D.S. -V- G T TRADING (ELECTRICAL) LTD
Personal Injury
Instructed by Keoghs and AXA UK James Hogg successfully defended a sizeable claim for personal injury and loss of earnings, obtaining a finding of fundamental dishonesty following a two day multi track trial. Investigations had uncovered inconsistencies and misleading evidence from a claimant who had been made redundant prior to bringing his claim.
At trial the judge found that the accident didn’t happen and the claimant knew his version of events was false. The claim was dismissed for a total saving of £116,000 with permission for the defendant to enforce their costs on an indemnity basis
-
Successfully represented defendant in case where social media proves to be the downfall for fundamentally dishonest fraudster.
-
GHULAM SAFI AND ORS -v- 1) JOWHARAH BAKER AND ALLIED INSUARANCE PLC
A defence that raised concerns about discrepancies and inconsistencies in a claim that might lead to an inference of fraud was not excluded per Hussain v Amin [2012] EWCA Civ 1456
Professional Associations
- Northern Circuit
- Personal Injury Bar Association
Education
- Girton College, University of Cambridge, MA Law
- BVC, Manchester Metropolitan University
Awards
- Inner Temple Exhibition Scholar
Articles by James
-
Proving Fundamental Dishonesty
Three recent cases, considered below, have provided guidance as to how a court should assess allegations of fundamental dishonesty. ‘When…
By: James Hogg Added in: Civil and Insurance Fraud
Posted: 22nd October 2021
