Mary is a barrister whose in house practice at Clyde & Co covers a broad range of personal injury litigation including catastrophic injury, employers' liability, public liability and road traffic claims. She has significant experience particularly in procedural matters.
Mary is a barrister whose in house practice at Clyde & Co covers a broad range of personal injury litigation including catastrophic injury, employers' liability, public liability and road traffic claims. She has significant experience particularly in procedural matters.
Mary was previously in chambers at No 1 Chancery Lane. She joined Clyde & Co in 2012 as in house counsel in the Casualty team in London.
Mary provides specialist procedural advocacy, drafting and advice across a wide range of personal injury litigation including employers' liability, public liability, road traffic accidents including catastrophic injury work. She is developing her role to undertake similar work in relation to litigation in other practice areas.
She appears regularly in court, both County and High Court at CMC/CCMC's and interim applications. She undertakes a high volume of drafting statements of case and other procedural documents as well as advising orally and in writing.
相关经验
Highly experienced in procedural advocacy at CMC/CCMCs, interim hearings and applications in High Court and County Court multi-track cases.
Specialisation in interlocutory and procedural matters has led to better knowledge and outcomes with high success rate in contested hearings.
Provides fast and efficient in house service drafting defences, counter-schedules applications, witness statements, draft orders, experts’ agendas, part 35 questions and other procedural documents.
Examples of issues regularly dealt with: striking out, disclosure, amendment, Part 20 claims, split trial, stay of proceedings, limitation, setting aside judgement in default, extensions of time, permission for expert evidence, admissibility of evidence, directions, costs, cost budgeting, approval hearings.
Examples of recent successful outcomes: resisting application for expert evidence on basis of expert shopping resulting in substantial limitation of quantum of C's claim; resisting application for permission to rely on care evidence resulting in substantial limitation of costs and quantum; resisting application for indemnity costs; reduction of C's cost budget by £600,000 in catastrophic injury case.
In house presence convenient and accessible, providing clients with a high quality and cost effective service.