Vaughan Jacob

Vaughan’s expertise includes:

• Fraudulent/exaggerated claims
• Employers’ liability, including accidents at work and on construction sites
• Public liability and occupiers’ liability claims
• Road traffic accidents, including policy coverage issues, recovery claims and credit hire claims
• Uninsured driver claims (Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA) insurer, Article 75 of the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) articles of association and MIB agreements and recovery actions under s151(8) of the RTA.
• Travel and cross border personal injury claims including jurisdiction and choice of law arguments
• Highways claims
• Fatal accidents claims
• Health and safety at work
• Claims brought pursuant to the Protection from Harassment Act 1977
• Product liability
• Military claims, including training injuries, injuries sustained in conflict and non-freezing cold injuries
• Abuse claims
• Sports injuries
• Use of Ogden tables and actuarial calculations concerning future loss
• Cases involving contractual indemnity and insurance coverage issues
• Costs, including representation at costs and case management conferences (CCMCs) and detailed assessment hearings

Cases of Note

• CL v DW and MS [2026] Represented the Defendant driver and her insurer in this claim arising from a road traffic accident pleaded at almost £9 million. The Claimant motorcyclist sustained serious injuries including a traumatic brain injury and above elbow amputation when a collision occurred at the brow of a steep hill. Liability and quantum were disputed; in particular there was an allegation the Claimant was racing another vehicle involved in the accident which placed the Defendant’s driver in an emergency  scenario. The Claimant claimed substantial loss of earnings, care and deputyship costs along with almost £2 million in respect of the trial of a myoelectric LUKE prosthetic arm. The Claim settled at JSM against leading Counsel shortly before High Court Trial for £3.24 million, approximately 36% of the pleaded value
• SL v (1) EI (2) TC [2026] Represented the First Defendant company in this multi-party occupiers’ liability claim in which the Claimant claimed £4 million in damages for personal injury following an accident in the First Defendant’s pub. She suffered a freak injury whilst descending some steps that resulted in a lower limb amputation. Liability, contributory negligence, causation and quantum were all disputed. The case was complicated by the addition of a second defendant maintenance contractor and the Claimant’s range of pre-existing medical conditions which affected the prognosis. The case settled for £1.4 million at a Joint Settlement Meeting, 35% of the pleaded value, with contributions from both Defendants.
• ME v MS [2026] Represented the Defendant insurer in this claim arising from a road traffic accident pleaded in excess of £2 million. The Claimant was a young man with a history of alcohol and substance abuse who suffered a traumatic brain injury when he was hit by the Defendant’s vehicle. The Claimant alleged he lacked capacity as a result of the injury and had a severely restricted ability to work and care for himself. However causation was disputed, especially in respect of loss of earnings, care, treatment and deputyship costs because of (a) uncertainty over the Claimant’s pre-accident trajectory due to his troubled history and (b) concern over the Claimant’s misreporting and exaggeration of symptoms. Settled for £1.25 million at JSM.
• Sebastian Braithwaite v London Borough of Lewisham [2025] EWHC 782 (KB) Represented the Defendant throughout this Highways Act Claim including Trial at first instance where the claim was dismissed in full by HHJ Saggerson. Vaughan then successfully resisted the Claimant’s appeal to the High Court heard by Cotter J and his application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Claimant was riding his motorcycle at night and collided with a pavement causing him to sustain multiple injuries. He claimed damages in excess of £200,000 from the highway authority and submitted they had negligently designed the pavement and failed to provide sufficient warning or illumination in breach of sections 41 and 75 Highways Act 1980. Following robust cross examination of both the Claimant and his Highway’s expert the Judge at first instance concluded this was an accident entirely of the Claimant’s own making. The Judgment was upheld on appeal when Cotter J provided clarification of the scope of a highway authority’s duty under the Act.
• Andrew Asquith v Tesco Stores Limited [2025] Represented the Defendant throughout this occupiers’ liability claim including a successful multi-track trial before HHJ Malek where the claim was dismissed in full. The Claimant sustained a knee injury at a Tesco store when falling down some stairs. Liability was not in issue but causation was heavily disputed. Despite a substantial physical recovery within 12 months the Claimant claimed £2 million in lost profits. He alleged his injury occurred during a key period of business for him. There was accountancy evidence in support of his figures. However he became unstuck in cross-examination as he failed to prove the accident as opposed to a myriad of other factors such as COVID caused his loss. He was awarded £30,000 but since he had failed to accept the Defendant’s previous low offer to settle this was reduced to £0.
• Duane Whitehouse v EDF Energy [2025] Represented the Defendant throughout this employers’ liability claim including at a successful multi-track trial where the Claim was dismissed in full. The Claimant claimed damages following an accident at the Defendant’s nuclear plant. He was tasked with repairing some pipework and suffered chemical burns. He alleged the Defendant had failed to provide him with protective equipment and a safe system of work. It transpired in cross-examination that the Claimant had failed to follow his training and that his colleague in fact saw nothing. The Judge dismissed the Claim in full.
• MO (Deceased) v (1) MH (2) WB [2025] Appeared against leading Counsel in this Fatal Accidents Act claim. A family claimed damages on behalf of a cyclist who was tragically killed in a collision with the Defendant’s vehicle. Liability was conceded but quantum was disputed. I represented the Defendant from drafting the Defence to conclusion. The Claimants claimed the Deceased would have been promoted and earned significantly higher amounts in his career and also that he would have provided significant family support despite his children being of adult age. However the Defendant rightly queried the pleaded career trajectory and loss of services claim. The claim settled for £1,050,000 shortly before Trial at a joint settlement meeting.
• A v x Logistics [2025] Represented the Defendant logistics firm and their foreign insurer in this multi party fatal accident act claim. The Claimant’s family claimed damages from the Defendant’s HGV driver and his foreign insurer when an accident occurred in a lorry park parking lot. The Claimant walked in front of the Defendant’s HGV truck when it was pulling off and sadly died. The family blamed the driver but also the owner of the lorry park for failing to operate a safe venue.  Liability and contributory negligence were in dispute and the parties relied on expert reconstruction evidence. Causation of loss was also disputed with the loss of earnings and care figures contained in the dependency claim being subject to heavy scrutiny. Settled for £380,000 at joint settlement meeting.
• Lee Jones v Welland Waste Management [2024] Represented the Defendant in this employers’ liability claim which was dismissed in full at Trial. The Claimant claimed damages in excess of £200,000 from his employer after he fell into an industrial wood shredder whilst working on a waste management site and suffered injury. Vaughan was involved from the outset, advising on tactics, drafting the Defence, assessing witnesses and representing the Defendant at Trial. Following cross-examination Recorder Owen KC found the Claimant’s evidence was unreliable. He found the Claimant had climbed onto the shredder when he had been specifically instructed not to, and that he was using his phone filming the machine instead of paying attention. The Judge found no breach of duty but also that the Claimant was on a frolic of his own and his own actions had severed the chain of causation. The Claim was dismissed in full.
• Deryck Wales v Creative Penguin Graphics Limited [2024] Represented the Defendant in this occupier’s liability claim which was dismissed in full at Trial. A decorator claimed damages in excess of £200,000 after he fell off a ladder sustaining injury. He claimed the premises were chaotic and unsafe and blamed the absent owner. However close scrutiny of the medical records suggested the Claimant was carrying plasterboard up the ladder when he fell. Further, during cross-examination the Claimant conceded  that he was able to set up the ladder safely before falling and Vaughan made a submission of no case to answer. Recorder Gibbons agreed that the Defendant had no sufficient control of the premises to be rendered an occupier for the purposes of the Occupiers’ Liability Act, and that the accident did not occur due to the state of the premises but due to the Claimant’s own negligent work methods.
• ABF v (1) SP (2) HK [2024] Represented the Defendant in this claim arising out of a high speed road traffic accident.  The Claimant claimed over £500,000 for a range of psychiatric and orthopaedic injuries. Vaughan was involved from an early stage and noted inconsistencies in the Claimant’s various accounts of her symptoms given to her medical experts and the presence of similar pre-existing symptoms in the medical notes. At a joint settlement meeting in December 2023 the Defendant offered £140,000 exactly in line with Vaughan’s advice just 28% of the pleaded value of the Claim. The Claimant initially rejected this and left the meeting but returned a few weeks later to accept, showing the benefits of holding firm when a good offer is made.
• Joel Fruhman v David Lloyd Club Holding Limited [2023] Vaughan was successful at a full liability and quantum trial in this personal injury case having represented the Defendant from the outset of the litigation process. The claimant gym member claimed he suffered from a rare condition known as Rhabdomyolysis following an intense personal training session. The case raised interesting legal questions about the extent of a personal trainer’s duty and standard of care in circumstances in which the claimant himself had asked to be ‘pushed hard.’ There was also a key issue regarding the foreseeability of this rare medical condition even if breach of duty was made out. Vaughan robustly argued the case at trial in front of Her Honour Judge Evans. The Claimant’s case was dismissed in full saving the Defendant over £150,000 in damages and costs.
• Mr Perry Fieldson v Mr Matthew Smith [2022] This claim concerned serious injuries arising out of a road traffic accident. Liability was not in dispute but the parties were unable to reach agreement on quantum. The claimant suffered a range of orthopaedic injuries and ongoing stomach and chest pain due to a kidney injury. The claimant claimed £2.7 million in damages, the majority of which were future loss of earnings, future pension loss, future care costs and future accommodation costs. Vaughan advised the first defendant on disclosure, settlement parameters and tactics. Vaughan then attended at a joint settlement meeting where he persuaded the claimant’s legal team large swathes of the claim as presented lacked any legal merit. The case settled after a day of negotiation at £500,000, just 18% of the claimed value, saving the defendant insurer a potential £2.2 million in damages and another £250,000 in legal costs if settlement was not achieved and the case ran to trial.
• Mrs Elizabeth Forgash v (1) Zenith Insurance PLC (2) Mr David Forgash [2022] Vaughan successfully represented the first defendant, an insurance company, from the outset of proceedings right up to a full liability trial presided over by His Honour Judge Saggerson in this high value multi-track personal injury claim. The claimant was a pillion passenger on a motorcycle driven by her husband, the second defendant. When the second defendant emerged from a crossroads junction in Fitzrovia there was a collision with a minicab driven by the first defendant’s insured driver. Both the claimant and second defendant blamed the first defendant and so did a police report produced shortly after the accident. However by highlighting various inconsistencies in the Claimant’s case elicited under robust cross examination the Judge preferred the evidence of the first defendant and found for Vaughan’s client on a 100% basis with no reduction for contributory negligence, saving the insurer at least £500,000 in damages and a further £200,000 in legal costs. The case also provides a rare example of a successful deployment of the ‘agony of the moment’ defence. Such a defence concerns a motorist who takes evasive action which perhaps in hindsight was not the best course but who is nonetheless vindicated because his driving was reasonable when presented with an emergency.
• Ben Davies v Mental Healthcare UK Limited [2022] Vaughan represented the defendant healthcare provider in this employers’ liability case. The Claimant alleged he had sustained life changing injuries following an altercation at work when a service user threw a chair at his right shoulder. A range of expert evidence was gathered on both sides, including orthopaedic, psychological, and neurological reports, with no clear prognosis or explanation for the Claimant’s alleged continuing symptoms. Vaughan successfully resisted the Claimant’s application for yet more expert evidence from a pain management expert which would have significantly increased the value of the claim. Although the claimant claimed £650,000 the matter settled through Vaughan’s careful negotiation at a joint settlement meeting for £240,000, just 36% of the value claimed, saving the defendant a large sum in damages and legal costs.
• Singh v Bedford County Council [2022] Vaughan represented the claimant orthopaedic surgeon who was forced to brake suddenly on his bicycle when confronted with the defendant’s van travelling on the opposite side of the road causing months off work. Vaughan successfully negotiated a substantial settlement through persuasive argument at a joint settlement hearing.
• Lacey v Oxfordshire County Council [2022] Vaughan represented the defendant council in respect of a public liability claim involving a child who suffered a serious crush fracture when a dislodged bollard to her foot necessitating prosthetics now and in the future. Liability was not in issue. Vaughan successfully halved the claim’s pleaded value at JSM to £180,000.
• Reed v RJ Utility Services Limited and others [2021] Represented the defendant construction company and their insurer from the outset in defending a claim pleaded at over £10m when their employee suffered a serious brain injury and quadriplegia on a construction site when cladding from an adjacent site became detached and landed on him. The claimant discontinued his claim against the client following service of Vaughan’s defence and a joint settlement meeting, accepting Vaughan’s client had no duty of care in circumstances where he had no notice of any potential defect with cladding on a nearby site.
• Hajduk v Sharpak [2021] Represented the defendant and her insurer from the outset in this employers’ liability claim. The claimant claimed damages of over £200,000 following a minor repetitive strain injury at work. She claimed she had chronic regional pain syndrome and was unable to work but surveillance obtained by the defendant suggested she could use the arm freely and exaggerated her symptoms at her medico-legal exams. Following a robust defence, counter-schedule and skeleton argument, the claimant discontinued her case on the morning of a three- day trial in front of Her Honour Judge Gore QC.
• Castilho v Doldur [2021] Successfully defended the defendant and his insurance company in a multi-track trial in this personal injury claim following a road traffic accident. Following robust cross examination, the judge found the claimant’s account of the accident and injury was fabricated. Vaughan obtained both a finding of fundamental dishonesty and an order that the claimant’s credit hire company be added to proceedings for costs purposes pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 44.6(2) and 44.16(2)(b).
• Belskis v (1) Kitunzi and others [2021] Represented the defendant in at first instance and on appeal before His Honour Judge Gerald in a personal injury claim in which there was an issue over the extent of expert evidence and the discretion afforded to judge when considering what expert evidence is “reasonably required to resolve proceedings” for the purposes of CPR 35.1. The defendant was successful and the claimant’s appeal was dismissed.
• Harris v GLJ [2020] Represented the defendant from the outset in an employers’ liability claim pleaded in excess of £1.7m. The claimant claimed he suffered from a stroke and serious brain injury, which caused his successful business to fail. Liability was not in dispute, but causation and quantum were contested. Medical evidence was obtained from a variety of experts including a consultant neurologist and forensic accountant casting doubt on the pleaded case. The case settled a month before trial at joint settlement meeting for £555,550, 30% of the pleaded value of the claim.
• Ian Smith v Menzies Aviation [2020] Successfully defended the defendant at trial in this employer’s liability case. The claimant claimed he suffered serious injury due to the defendant’s allegedly inadequate risk assessment, training regime and supervision on site. The claim was dismissed in its entirety following Vaughan’s thorough cross- examination.
• Richardson v Tesco [2019] Successfully defended the defendant supermarket chain at a multi-track trial before Her Honour Judge Sykes from a personal injury claim relating to a slip at one of their stores allegedly causing serious injuries and losses of over £250,000. Following Vaughan’s cross-examination, the claimant’s account was exposed as barely credible and Her Honour Judge Sykes dismissed the claim in full.
• Matthew Boon v others v Pritchard and others [2018] 2 WLUK 320 Successfully secured a finding of fundamental dishonesty for a defendant insurer against 17 separate coach passengers bringing linked fraudulent personal injury claims following a six-day trial in front of His Honour Judge Gregory QC.