David Knifton KC secures approval of £2.15m damages for brain-injured cyclist

June 6, 2025

In a settlement recently approved by the High Court in Sheffield, David Knifton KC, instructed by Mark Hollinghurst, Managing Director of PI at Switalskis Solicitors, has secured net damages of £2.15m on behalf of a young man with pre-existing learning difficulties, who suffered a severe brain injury when he was struck by an HGV whilst riding his bike across a traffic light-controlled junction on a busy arterial road.

The case raised a number of issues. Despite the fact that the HGV had passed through the traffic lights over 11 seconds after they had changed to red, liability was initially denied, upon the basis that the Claimant’s decision to ride into the carriageway when the HGV was clearly there to be seen broke the chain of causation. In the event, primary liability was later conceded, but allegations of contributory negligence were raised due to the Claimant’s failure to wear a cycle helmet and his decision to cross without looking. Expert evidence indicated that his skull fracture would have been avoided had a helmet been worn, and that the severity of the brain injury would have been substantially decreased. CCTV evidence from the HGV cab showed that the Claimant had ridden from the pavement onto the crossing without checking for approaching traffic.

After careful assessment of the risks involved, and despite the Defendants seeking a greater reduction, David negotiated a liability apportionment of 80%:20% in the Claimant’s favour at a JSM, persuading the Defendants that it was inappropriate to aggregate the discounts relating to each element of contributory negligence (Owens v Lewis [2024] EWHC 609), and that the gross negligence of the HGV driver far outweighed the blameworthiness and causative potency of the Claimant’s actions.

As regards quantum, whilst experts on both sides were largely agreed that the brain injury had given rise to lasting cognitive and behavioural difficulties, requiring lifelong case management and support, there was a substantial dispute as to whether such needs were significantly different from those arising from the Claimant’s pre-existing learning difficulties. In the light of Reaney v University Hospital of North Staffs [2015] EWCA Civ 1119, it was accepted that the Defendants were only liable to compensate the Claimant for additional needs arising from their negligence. Further issues were raised regarding the Claimant’s life expectancy (which was reduced as a result both of his brain injury and his smoking) and the level of support worker input he would require.

Once again, those issues were carefully analysed with the Claimant’s experts, in the light of the pre- and post-accident medical records. Importantly, the Claimant had engaged well in a programme of multi-disciplinary rehabilitation, demonstrating that he was capable of making significant gains in his independence and quality of life with suitable support. Ultimately, settlement was agreed on the basis of a need for 24-hour support during a 12-month trial of independent living (at a cost of around £200,000), gradually reducing to input for around 20 hours per week over the Claimant’s lifetime (less 5 hours that would have been required due to his pre-existing needs), amounting to a further £1.34m. Additional sums were negotiated for loss of earning capacity (albeit the Claimant had never worked to date), aids and equipment, treatment and therapies, additional holiday costs and lifetime deputyship costs. The overall value of the settlement, prior to the discount for contributory negligence, was almost £3m.

Although the judge initially expressed some reservations about approving the settlement prior to completion of an independent living trial, he ultimately agreed that the compromise was in the Claimant’s best interests, given the litigation risks in relation to both liability and quantum if the matter proceeded to trial.

Commenting on the award, David Knifton KC said: “This case illustrates the importance of carefully analysing each issue, considering the expert evidence on each side, and reaching an assessment which properly takes into account the litigation risks. Critically, it requires an exercise of judgment as to when is the best time to settle. That can only be done with the benefit of a legal team with substantial experience of catastrophic injury litigation. I am confident that this settlement represents the best deal that could have been obtained, and will ensure that the Claimant’s lifetime needs are properly met. I wish him every success for the future.”

Mark Hollinghurst added: “I was so pleased at the excellent outcome for our client, after a life-changing injury. Despite the challenges, our client did all he could to try to improve his quality of life with the help of a brilliant case manager and therapy team, and it was great to see his progress. I would like to thank David Knifton KC of Exchange Chambers who provided excellent advice throughout, and I would also wish to thank Julie Wilkinson of my team for her hard work in this case. We wish our client and his family all the best for the future.”

David Knifton KC was instructed by Mark Hollinghurst and Julie Wilkinson at Switalskis Solicitors, Doncaster