St John's Buildings

Deputy District Judge Gareth Thompson was sitting at Chelmsford County Court on 11/08/22, claim no. 155MC293. He is also part of St. Johns Buildings Chambers as a barrister. The claim involves a Polish driver driving 60 mph on the wrong side of the road which resulted in a serious head on collision. The driver was arrested by Essex Police for Careless Driving. The Polish insurance company PZU and their UK handling agents Inter Europe AG are both being represented by DAC Beachcroft. The claim is for personal injuries supported by hospital records, GP records, images of accident, images of injuries, 2 medical reports and in support of a police report. DAC Beachcroft have lied the claim was issued in the wrong court which it was not and wiggled out of this claim by stating the claim should not have been issued against the UK handling agents Inter Europe. They did not state they were also representing the Polish insurance company. Thompson threw out this valid claim to against PZU who are known to delay or refuse valid claims. They have been fined several times for this by Polish authorities. Thompson is based at the Manchester branch at St Johns, M3 4DJ and Inter Europe AG the UK handling agents for the Polish insurance company PZU, UKs address is Manchester, M17 1DB. They are 10 minutes drive from each other and the hearing was in Colchester, Essex. On his profile it states He has had extensive experience of claims arising from road traffic accidents including those involving the MIB and arising from accidents that have occurred abroad. Does not seem to be a fair or just Judge. Any judge that supports a foreign driver driving on the wrong side of the road that could of killed someone and demands the victim pay legal fees to DAC Beachcroft should not sit as a Judge let alone be a Barrister. Seems like this was a biased hearing for his friends.
Aug 24th, 2022

Mr Bunty Batra is excellent counsel who understands his clients very well and is able fight their case fearlessly.
Mar 2nd, 2020

May 28th, 2019

Good advice obtained and appropriate letter provided.
Nov 19th, 2018

I wish my solicitors had not used Mr Andrew Bridgman, as barrister. I feel very hurt by Mr Bridgman's attitude, behaviour, his supercilious tone when he spoke to me and more importantly I believe his advice was wrong. My case was about orthodontic treatment that damaged my teeth, left me with distorted bite and chronic pain. The first witness expert, Mr K, an orthodontist, supported my claim. He noted my distorted bite, asymmetrical canted teeth and other issues after the treatment and explained in his report how orthodontic treatment caused my chronic pain. The Letter of Claim was based on his report and records from 5 other dentists, who saw the connection between my pain, bite issues and orthodontic treatment. After it was submitted to the orthodontist defence organisation, my solicitors wanted me to see a second expert, Mr G. Many of Mr Gs statements in his report for the court were not true and opposite to the evidence, i.e, Mr G stated that I damaged my teeth myself by grinding them while the orthodontist had already offered to pay for the remedial treatment admitting he damaged them. Mr G knew nothing about orthodontics but stated that orthodontics cannot cause jaw and muscle pain and TMD. My solicitors promised to explain to Mr G why and where he was wrong, and find another expert for me if needed. After the offer of compensation was received in response to the Letter of Claim (based on Mr K's report and 5 other dentists), my solicitors involved Mr Bridgman. Mr Bridgmans advice was that Mr K changed his mind, records from 5 other dentists cannot be used, I am not entitled to any compensation for my chronic jaw pain because Mr G stated that orthodontics cannot cause jaw pain and TMD, and If as Mr G stated there is insufficient evidenced based research to support a causal link between TMD, occlusion and orthodontic treatment then it seems unlikely that any other instructed experts would have provided, or will provide, any different opinions. I believe Mr Bridgman was wrong because there are solicitors and dental specialists, who, unlike Mr Bridgman and Mr G, know the problems that can be caused by unbalanced bite after orthodontic treatment, and they share this information on their websites. Even my solicitors themselves a year later proudly stated that they got compensation for another client for her jaw pain as the result of orthodontic treatment in the article "Student accepts more than 10,000 after dentist incorrectly fitted braces on her teeth" posted online by Telegraph, on 27 November 2018: "Dr W had failed to use reasonable care and skill when planning for and fitting Daniella's braces which led to them being ineffective and jaw pain and toothache. This is not a situation where every case is different. This is the case of whether orthodontic treatment can or cannot cause jaw and muscle pain and TMD. When I complained about Mr G to other organisations later, it turned out that he was not honest in his advertising, used General Dental Council logo on his website while his name was not on GDC register; stated that he was "Manchester Medicolegal Society Approved Expert Witness", while this society do not and never have approved anyone for anything and had no record of his being a member, etc, etc. However, when I questioned Mr Gs agenda and integrity and pointed out to Mr Bridgman that many of Mr G's statements were not true and opposite to the evidence, Mr Bridgman stated it is simply that the Claimant does not agree with Mr G. Mr Bridgman stated that the Defendants offer of would appear to be more than adequate in settlement of this claim. When I contacted other legal professionals later, I received legal advice that it appeared my claim was under settled, and I could sue either solicitors (who took Mr Bridgmans advice) or expert witness Mr G, but the compensation I could receive would not cover legal fees.
Dec 25th, 2020