William Waldron QC

Call 1986
Silk 2006

waldronqc@exchangechambers.co.uk

"He takes the time to fully explain things and listens carefully to clients, allaying their nervousness with his calm and reassuring manner. He is quick to respond and accessible."

Chambers and Partners 2019
Photo of William Waldron QC

Practice Overview

Will Waldron travels the country handling catastrophic injury claims of complexity and high value and has a particular expertise in brain, spine and amputee cases. With a comprehensive mastery of his practice areas, Will is calm and measured and considered extremely “client friendly”. He is a first-class advocate. He is highly knowledgeable in all things aviation and is well qualified to handle claims involving injury following aircraft accidents. Before taking Silk, he spent over a decade as Junior Counsel in catastrophic injury claims, gaining vast experience, which he has been able to deploy to great effect as Leading Counsel.

Will is a Bencher of Gray’s Inn, Chair of Northern Circuit Advocacy Training, was Deputy Chair of the internationally renowned Advocacy Training Council, and in 2016 he was appointed as Deputy Governor of its successor, the prestigious Inns of Court College of Advocacy. He has over 20 years’ experience of teaching advocacy skills to young barristers and is an assessor of advocacy trainers.

A nationally recognised speaker on all aspects of catastrophic injury claims and a regular contributor to legal journals, he is a Recorder of the Crown and County Courts, a Judge of the Mental Health Tribunal Restricted Panel and a qualified Mediator.

Cases

XX – Tetraplegia and brain damage. Devastating injuries to a man aged 22 at the date of the accident and 26 at settlement who rejected rehabilitation and had to be coaxed to engage.  Compromise reached at £2.2m lump sum and £275,000 annual periodical payments(lump sum equivalent £9.1m)(2017)

SB – Catastrophic spinal injury with brain damage to a man aged 25 at injury, 28 at settlement. Dispute as to whether the Claimant was wearing a seatbelt was resolved in his favour. Housing and care claims complex. Capacity raised difficult issues impacting upon damages. Compromise reached at £6.7m (2016)

Shortly for resolution:

X – On-going litigation involving a young man who was involved in a collision when riding an off-road motorcycle on the highway as a consequence of which he sustained catastrophic brain injury. Liability was hotly contested but compromised at 60/40 in the Claimant’s favour, approved by the court. Case value as yet unknown but likely to be in excess of £5m. (2016)

SX – Young man aged 15 when he was catastrophically injured as an unbelted rear seat car passenger, and 28 at date of settlement. Difficult issues surrounding care and case management because Claimant could never see a time when his family would not look after him. Over time, and with sensitive handling, resolution reached. Liability compromised at 80% in Claimant’s favour and settlement at £2.8m (2015)

EF – Spinal and brain injuries to a man aged 65 when he was knocked down by a car and 69 at settlement. He was reluctant to move from a house which was wholly unsuited to his needs but in which he had lived for much of his life. The care package was limited by his rejection of increasing amounts of assistance. Compromise was reached at £2.1m (2015)

AMM – Lower leg amputee who had made huge efforts post-accident to return to work and whose care needs were tolerably limited. The question of future losses was complex and fraught with litigation risk as the Claimant wished to manage alone for as long as possible. Settled for £1.6m. (2015)

AMP – Claim for a man aged 35 at the accident date and 40 at settlement catastrophically injured in a motorcycle accident. Considerable battle on accommodation and the case settled for £3.5m, including an element of damages to reflect a second house move. (2014)

Wilkinson v Churchill Insurance and Evans v Equity Insurance (2012) EWCA

Civ 1166

Represented Ms Evans in a case that was compromised shortly before it reached the Supreme Court.  The Claimant successfully argued that section 151 (8) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 was incompatible with European Directives, with the result that the Court of Appeal created a new hybrid species of  “fault” in which a person will suffer a deduction in damages for allowing an uninsured driver to drive their vehicle. Section 151 of the Act had previously permitted insurers to deny compensation in such cases.