Botched £1m injury case killed by incompetence—defence tried to save it

Judge blasts claimant’s lawyers but hails defence for trying to save their opponent’s derailed claim

In a rare and dramatic courtroom twist, a judge has hailed defence lawyers for trying to keep alive a £1 million personal injury claim—despite it being against their client’s interests.

His Honour Judge Hassell, presiding at Manchester County Court, dismissed the claim but lavished praise on solicitors from Weightmans for going above and beyond to save a case that the claimant’s own legal team had let fall apart.

The case centred around a man, aged 22 at the time, who suffered serious injuries in a 2016 road traffic accident. But what began as a high-value personal injury suit quickly descended into a procedural mess. Over several years, the claimant’s law firm, Gregory Abrams Davidson, repeatedly failed to meet deadlines, communicate effectively, or comply with court directions.

In a final plea, the firm tried to blame the chaos on a now-departed fee-earner who had allegedly “gone rogue”. They sought relief from sanctions and begged the court to reinstate the case. But Judge Hassell refused, citing “haphazard progress at all stages” and wasted court time.

Despite this, the judge expressed genuine admiration for Weightmans. At one point, the defence firm made an attempt to restore the matter themselves after months of silence from the claimant’s side. Judge Hassell called it a “reverse of conventional litigation practice” and noted their repeated efforts to get updates and encourage action—efforts that were met with sporadic and “of questionable value” responses.

Weightmans did not sit back and wait for the claim to collapse. They wrote regularly, gave fair warnings, and tried to move things along, even when it didn’t serve their own case. The judge described this as “exemplary cooperation” that exceeded basic procedural expectations.

The case had already been given a lifeline once before. In 2022, the court granted relief after the claimant breached an extension order. A trial was then set to examine a preliminary issue—but the claimant accepted a Part 36 offer to settle before the hearing. Despite this, they failed to inform the court or have the trial vacated.

When the required trial fee went unpaid in February 2023, the case was struck out automatically.

Speaking after the ruling, Shaun Lavery, principal associate at Weightmans, said the case should serve as a warning to defence firms: don’t rush to exploit every procedural slip-up. Instead, he argued, courts respond positively to cooperation and professionalism.

“When confronted with a party who is consistently failing to progress a matter or falling foul of rules and orders, the first instinct, to pounce, should be subdued,” Lavery advised. “Ensure your own house is in order, comply with all requirements, and go the extra mile.”

He said reminders, fair warnings, and flexibility can all influence the court’s view when sanctions are considered under the Denton test, which assesses whether a sanction is proportionate.

While the claimant’s attempt to revive the case failed, the conduct of the defence left a lasting impression. In the end, it wasn’t the million-pound claim or the “rogue” solicitor that stole the spotlight—it was the rare display of integrity from the opposing legal team.