Benjamin Roberts Solicitors - Halifax Injury Solicitors
URDU, PUNJABI, HINDI, POLISH AND ENGLISH Spoken 15 Years Experience
24 Hour Emergency Line:
01422 356633 or 01422 356633

Previous Cases

HERE ARE A SELECTION OF OUR PREVIOUS CASES WHICH WE HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN.

Barker -v- Calderdale MBC

Benjamin Roberts Solicitors assisted their client to win a high value claim for an accident at work in which she suffered psychiatric injury and post-traumatic stress. Mrs Barker worked with disabled students at a special school and was injured when she was left without assistance to change a special needs teenage student with a mental age of approximately 1 year. In the process of changing the student, the student kicked out violently causing the client physical injury as well as psychological injury due to seeing the student in such distress. The situation had arisen due to the defendant's lack of proper procedures for dealing with such emergencies and the lack of assistance provided to Mrs Barker.

Mrs Barker suffered acute psychological injury and was affected to such an extent that she was no longer able to work and became housebound and withdrawn from everyday life. She was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. She had tried her best to seek help and treatment in order to recover from her injuries and even paid privately for treatment.

The claimant brought her claim to Benjamin Roberts Solicitors after another solicitor was unable to provide the specialty required to deal with such a complicated and sensitive case. Benjamin Roberts acted quickly and initiated a claim against the Defendants who at first accepted primary liability but denied that the incident had led to or had caused Mrs Barker's injuries. The Defendants would only accept limited liability and made a derisory offer to settle the case. The defendants would not accept the claimant's medical evidence and obtained their own evidence and then resorted to covert surveillance of Mrs Barker. They even applied to withdraw from their initial admission of liability during proceedings, but were refused.

The defendants raised the issue of foreseeability arguing that they could not have foreseen the incident would have caused the client's injuries from which she was now suffering despite medical evidence to the contrary. The defendant also argued contributory negligence and fault on the part of Mrs Barker and alleged she did not use the correct procedures. Mrs Barker who was already suffering acute stress was made even more ill and came close to a total breakdown, due to the way the Defendants chose to Defend the case .

Benjamin Roberts solicitors fought hard and successfully challenged and defeated the defendants application to withdraw their admission of liability. The Claimant succeeded in her case 100% against the Defendants arguments of contributory fault and foreseeability. The case went to a 5 day trial at Court during which experts and witnesses for both parties gave evidence, and the Defendants tried their utmost to discredit the Mrs Barker.

Mrs Barker succeeded in securing a substantial award of damages.

Mr L -v- Employer

Mr L sustained a serious injury to his eye whilst using a drill to make holes in a metal plate at work. The metal drill bit broke and flew up, through the safety glasses being worn by the claimant and into the Claimant's eye causing him severe pain.

The Claimant was brought to hospital was operated upon to remove the metal piece from his eye leaving the client with permanent scarring to his eye and damage to his sight. Mr L was wearing eye protection but the protection provided by his employer was not fit for purpose. However the defendant insurer firmly denied liability and presented expert engineering reports to support their view that the eye protection was appropriate and continued to deny liability and even questioned whether Mr L was wearing eye protection at all.

employee drilling

Mr L was extremely worried about his future because the injury was going to affect his future prospects for work as well as his day to day activities including reading for any length of time or even watching television.

Benjamin Roberts fought hard at every avenue to secure compensation for Mr L. We challenged the use of the Defendants expert engineering evidence and continued through the proper channels to arrange our own inspection of the Defendants premises and equipment by our forensic engineer which concluded that the Defendants safety equipment in use by Mr L was not adequate.

The defendant continued to maintain their position so Benjamin Roberts solicitors prepared the case for trial. Once court proceedings were issued the defendants made offers to settle the case.

Mr L's claim settled for £80,000 and he was extremely grateful to Benjamin Roberts solicitors for the work undertaken on his behalf and the result achieved.

Secker -v- Kirklees MBC

Another case in which Benjamin Roberts Solicitors assisted their client to win a highway tripping case against Kirklees MBC at trial. Liability was disputed throughout and as such the matter had to be decided by the Court.

Mrs Secker, who was 69 at the time, had been walking to a bus stop at the end of her road as her car had broken down that morning. Unfortunately, as she walked across the road she tripped in a large pothole and fell onto her face suffering injury.

Benjamin Roberts Solicitors acted quickly and went out to measure the defect and undertook investigations which found images of the road, dating back to as far as 2009, which proved that the council had not been complying with their duty to inspect the highway.

Despite the defect measuring 8.5 inches in depth (on a carriage way the guidelines indicate a depression over 50mm in depth should be repaired), Kirklees MBC contended that their system of inspection had been satisfactory and that the defect was not actionable.

The Defendants would not negotiate settlement despite offers being made and as such the matter proceeded to trial.

Mrs Secker was awarded £6,000.00 less 15% for contributory negligence, for failing to look where she was going (although Mrs Secker had explained that she was looking to see if there were people at the bus stop as it would indicate whether a bus was coming).

Benjamin Roberts Solicitors fight hard for their clients, even in cases such as this, which are notoriously difficult to prove and often well defended.

Mrs Secker was extremely pleased with the result and wrote a card thanking the file handler and Benjamin Roberts Solicitors for their hard work and continued support.

'I would like to say thank you very much for all your support over the last two years. To me, over any beyond. You have kept me informed of all the procedures and guided me through, very friendly but always very professional. I hope I never need a solicitor again, but if I did I would not hesitate to call your office. Thank you to all at your office for their help too'

Mr Hafeez v Mr Ur-Rehman

Benjamin Roberts Solicitors have been successful in another claim that was heavily defended.

Mr Hafeez was driving his vehicle down a busy main road when Mr Ur-Rehman drove out of a car park entrance, which was surrounded by parked vehicles, and into the path of Mr Hafeez's vehicle, causing damage to his vehicle and also causing injury to Mr Hafeez and his two passengers.

The Defendant alleged that the collision was too minor to cause injury and also that one of the passengers was not present in the vehicle. Though fraud was not pleaded in this matter, it was dealt with by the Defendants as if fraud had been committed. This meant that there was a lot more investigations than there would have normally been in a case of this nature. The Defendants tried to put pressure on the Claimant to prove every detail of his past accident history and made accusations of dishonesty. In advising the Claimant, Benjamin Roberts directed him on the disclosure that should be made and that which was not required although wanted by the Defendants. This frustrated the Defendants attempts to discredit the Claimant.

The Defendants started negotiations in the matter about a fortnight before trial and continued up until 20 minutes before the trial began. Before stepping into court, the Defendant accepted the Claimant's previous offer to settle the claim in the sum of £4,700.00 meaning the Defendant was 100% to blame for the accident.

Benjamin Roberts Solicitors show again that even if fraud is alleged, or inferred, if we believe in your case we will fight your case right to the end and will not give up until you win your case, even if this means taking it to trial to ensure we do.

Mr Hafeez was very pleased with the work Benjamin Roberts carried out for him and agrees it was a very hard fought case. He appreciates that Benjamin Roberts went above and beyond in order to ensure his successful conclusion and says if he ever has another accident he would definitely come to us and would refer anyone else he knows to us.

His two passengers claims were brought by another firm of solicitors who took no action on their cases until the outcome of this case were known. They have applauded Benjamin Roberts on winning such a hard fought case 100% and have indicated they would refer any cases they cannot deal with to us.

Mr M

Mr M was employed as a HGV driver and was injured when whilst unhinging the straps in the trailer he stood and slipped upon and a metal hook that was resting on the floor of the trailer from one of the restraining straps he had already released. He suffered a fractured left femur which required surgery and eventually a hip replacement.

Mr M was successful in recovering £27,500.00 in compensation for his injuries and was very pleased with the service provided by Benjamin Roberts Solicitors and with the outcome of his claim.

Martin Haley v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council

We are pleased to announce another of our clients has been successful in his claim for personal injuries at trial after a trip on a pothole as a result of which he suffered a sprained left shoulder and soft tissue injuries to his neck.

This matter was heard in Leeds Combined Court. After hearing all of the evidence the Judge determined that the Council were at fault in failing to repair the pothole which was dangerous and posed a hazard to pedestrians. The defect was repaired within 2 months of the Claimant's accident and Council argued that the defect was not a hazard at the time the Claimant suffered his accident. The Council did produce their yearly inspection records but, they had inspected the area of the defect within days of the Claimant's accident and found there to be no defect. Our solicitors had attended at the scene of the accident within days of the accident and took detailed photographs with accurate measurements of the defect. This bit of investigation showed that the defect was indeed hazardous and, ultimately, the Council's arguments were not accepted by the court.

Compensation was determined in the sum of £8,500. However it was held that our client was 50% contributory negligent in the accident as he could have watched where he was going to avoid the pothole. The court found it pertinent that he had walked in the area and past the defect on many occasions in the past, and therefore should have known that it was there.

Although Mr Haley was disappointed that the court reduced his damages by half he was very pleased that Benjamin Roberts fought his case so hard to trial and ultimately he was successful in receiving compensation for some of what he had been through as a result of his accident.

Highway tripping claims are notoriously unpredictable but we have a wealth of experience and knowledge in this area of the law. We gather the evidence needed to ensure it can be demonstrated that Councils that fail to carry out their duty to the public by keeping our roads and pavements safe are held responsible for any injuries caused as a result of their failure to perform their duty.

If you have been the victim of an incident like this you may be entitled to compensation. Start your claim today with Benjamin Roberts we can offer no win no fee legal advice with a multi-lingual service if required. Call us today on 0800 432 0122.

Speight v Golden

Benjamin Roberts Solicitors maximise client's damages again.

Miss S suffered whiplash and other associated neck and back injuries when the Defendant drove into the back of her vehicle at a roundabout. She started her claim through a firm of solicitors provided to her by a motor insurer. After getting examined by a medical expert she was advised by her solicitors to make an offer to settle her claim for £3,100. This was despite that fact that she was still suffering daily with pain as a result of the accident.

Not being satisfied with the advice given to her Miss S came to Benjamin Roberts Solicitors and we agreed that more should be done to quantify her losses suffered as a result of her accident.

Miss S transferred her file to Benjamin Roberts and we immediately arranged for her to be examined by a senior Orthopaedic Specialist. The specialist diagnosed sub acromial impingement in her shoulder as a result of the accident and an acceleration of a back problem. The expert advised that she wold need surgery in the next few years.

We fought to get Miss S appropriate compensation and managed to settle her case in the sum of £25,000.

This is yet another example of insurer recommended solicitors concentrating on quantity and not quality when dealing with cases. The insurer's solicitors did not investigate the claim properly and the seriousness of her condition was simply not recognised. This could have led to her receiving £3,100 instead of £25,000.

Your choice of solicitor can be vital when making a claim - we are not all the same - and the amount of compensation you get depends on their experience and the attention they pay to your file. Benjamin Roberts always prioritise client care to maximise your compensation! We do this by putting the needs of our client first at all times.

If you aren't happy with the advice being given to you by your current solicitor call us on 0800 423 0122 or 01422 356633 at any time of the day for no win no fee legal advice.

Miss P. V .

Benjamin Roberts Solicitors are pleased to announce another successful employers liability manual handling case.

At the time of her accident our client was working as a sales assistant at a pet shop in West Yorkshire on the 31st of October 2010. She worked for the defendant on the days of delivery's coming into the store. Part of her job role was to lift the items that had been delivered into the store and then distribute these items onto shelves around the store.

Whilst the client was lifting large containers weighing between 15 and 20 kg of animal food, which was part of her job, she sustained injuries suffering a partial tearing to her right shoulder.

Our client had not been given any manual handling training and not been told what weights she should be seeking assistance with.

The defendant's argument was that the client should have known better and that she should have received training in her previous workplace.

Of course the law does not allow the Defendants to rely upon training provided by a previous employer, therefore they would have been left to rely upon the Claimant's own "common sense". Which we did not believe was a sustainable argument.

The defendant's denied liability throughout the entire way the case however they settled after court proceedings had been issues.

Benjamin Roberts fought for Miss P for almost 3 years before the case was settled and secured compensation of £25,000.00 for her.

MRS D -V- CARE HOME

This lady, a previous client was very happy with the job our principal solicitor Graham Roberts had done, in obtaining maximum compensation for her in a previous cliam. Mrs D returned to us when she unfortunately had another accident whilst at work.

The facts of the case were that Ms D worked in a care home, and on the 30th of June 2008 she was in the process of lifting a resident with another colleague to enable her to clean the resident. Whilst in the process of cleaning the resident, the resident became aggressive and pulled away from Mrs D, yanking and trapping her left arm and shoulder. In the same manoeuvre, the resident then returned to a seated position pulling Ms D's left arm and shoulder in the process.

Approximately a month later on the 31st of July 2008, Mrs D had a similar experience with the same resident which resulted in her injury becoming more severe. Despite the difficulties, eventually liability was settled in our clients favour.

Thereafter we fought hard to obtain maximum compensation for our client. As the defendants were not offering the level of compensation we wanted for our client, we advised the client that we would proceed to a court assessment of this matter. The claimant wanted to avoid going to court so settled her claim, against our advice in the sum of £6,300.00, in order to bring the case to a close.

The claimant was very happy with the service received and realised we were willing to go all the way to get her the compensation we felt she deserved.

MRS W -V- CARE HOME

Mrs W worked in a care home and suffered injury whilst attempting to raise an elderly resident to a standing position in a care home where she was employed.

The difficulty suffered in this case, was that the claimant was unsure of the exact date that she suffered her injury and she did not report the accident to her employers. The claimant also did not report that she had suffered any injury to her GP after the accident, although she had, in the meantime, been to her GP for other matters.

There is no mention in her GP records of the accident for 12 months after the injury had actually occurred. With this background, Benjamin Roberts assisted the Claimant to bring a claim against her employers in which liability was denied throughout the claim.

None of the claimant's work colleagues would provide any evidence which supported the claimant, that she was required to undertake a dangerous system of work in lifting residents rather than using a hoist or other mechanism. In fact, the defendants provided evidence from the claimant's work colleagues which indicated that none of them were aware of her accident and made allegations that she had suffered from pain in her shoulder prior to her even commencing work for the defendants.

This was a very hard fought case however Benjamin Roberts continued to strive for the claimant as we believed she was an honest person, although it had to be accepted that she had not officially reported the accident to her employers (she did not wish to make a fuss and was frightened that her employers would attempt to get rid of her) and the GP records were not overly supportive of her accident.

Eventually this case was settled in the sum of £5,000.00 on the basis that there were not insignificant risks if the case proceeded to trial. Mrs W was pleased that Benjamin Roberts Solicitors fought so hard to ensure that she was able to get some compensation from the defendants, which she saw as some acknowledgement that they accepted that they had caused her injury.

Care Home

MR J -V- THE POLICE

We acted on behalf of Mr J in relation to an action against the Police. He was arrested in 2008, assaulted during his arrest and then detained over night in the police station. Mr J was arrested in 2008 and later acquitted of any offence during his criminal trial.

Mr J brought a claim against the police for the injuries he sustained during his arrest, wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and malicious persecution. He instructed us to take over his case from his previous solicitors, as he wasn't happy with the way they were progressing his case. We pursued a claim on behalf of Mr J against West Yorkshire Police and within about 12 months were successful in recovering £12,500.00 in damages for him. Liability was never conceded by the police.

Mr J was extremely pleased with the manner in which we pursued the case on his behalf and we were able to recover a significant amount of damages in relation to the amount the police had initially offered.

MRS H

Mrs H tripped over the legs of a stand at the tills whilst shopping in a high street supermarket. She fell and injured her knees, which caused aggravation to her arthritis.

She was successful in recovering £7,500.00 in compensation for her injuries. Mrs H felt that the case took a long time to conclude, however was happy that Benjamin Roberts Solicitors fought so hard to secure her this amount.

MR M

We successfully assisted Mr M in a claim against his employers and he received £66,713.36 in compensation for a work related accident.

As part of his duties at work he was required to lift a heavy roll of material used in the construction of roads, weighing around 60kgs and move it from one part of the construction site to another.

As he was moving this heavy object with a colleague, his foot slipped as he was walking upon slippery and difficult terrain causing this heavy object to fall onto Mr M's shoulder and his lower back causing injury.

Mr M was very please with the advice and assistance he received.

MR ADAM FULAT -V- ARCELORMITTAL DISTRIBUTION SOLUTIONS UK LTD

We have succeeded at the Halifax County Court in another claim where the Defendants were alleging that the Claimant was making up the circumstances of his road traffic accident and his injuries.

Our client, a self-employed plumber received £3895.00 in damages and interest after a Road Traffic Accident left him with whiplash type injuries to his neck. He suffered with neck pain for 2 months and back pain for 3 months and found he was unable to work to his full capacity as a plumber.

Our client's vehicle was hit in the rear by a large articulated lorry which reversed into him as he was parked up at the side of the road. The driver of the Defendant's lorry denied any accident had occurred and claimed our client pulled up after he had reversed and claimed there had been a collision.

Once at Court District Judge Heels heard evidence from the Claimant and driver of the lorry and decided that Judgement would be given in favour of the Claimant for the following reasons:

The District Judge agreed with us that it was unlikely anyone would pull up behind a lorry and allege there had been a collision in an attempt to make a fraudulent claim. It was more likely that the size and weight of the lorry meant that the driver did not feel a collision with our client's vehicle.

The photographic evidence of damage to our client's van supported our client's assertions about the collision.

The Claimant received compensation for repairs to his vehicle and towards the cost of having the vehicle graphics replaced on his vehicle.

The client was pleased that we have believed him throughout this claim, worked exhaustively to prove his claim and fought his case all the way to trial on a no win no fee basis.

So even if fraud is alleged, we can still win the case for you!

GREENWOOD -V- HAINSWORTH T/A NORTHERN LANDSCAPES

This long standing case related to an accident which occurred on the 3rd August 2009.

The Claimant worked for the Defendant as a gardener and during the course of his employment working a Ransome grass cutting machine the Claimant unclogged the blades of the machine with his hand.

Upon unclogging the blade the blade began to spin and amputated the tip of the Claimants right ring finger.

The Claimant made a claim against his employer, Mr Alan Kevin Hainsworth, who denied liability throughout the claim and made allegations that the Claimant was making the circumstances of the accident and the claim up.

Mr Hainsworth felt so strongly about the matter that he decided to reject the assistance of his valid employer's liability insurance in order to defend the case himself.

Regrettably Mr Hainsworth did not appreciate many of the court processes and therefore this matter was somewhat delayed due to some inactivity.

The matter came before District Judge Goldberg on 24th October 2012.

Mr Hainsworth made various allegations that the Claimant was attempting to make the circumstances of the claim up but could not give an alternative explanation as to how he believed the accident could have occurred.

The Defendant, Mr Hainsworth was found 100% to blame for the accident due to a lack of training and instruction in the working of the machine which the Claimant was required to use at work.

Judgement was entered for the Claimant for £6,096.08 inclusive of £3,500.00 for the injury and £2,596.08 for interest and special damages including gratuitous care and nursing, loss of earnings, travel and other miscellaneous items.

Why choose Benjamin Roberts Solicitors? Click here to learn more! get up to £1000 Advance To help while you recover. Learn How (Terms Apply)! No Win, No Fee If we do not win your case, you pay nothing. Learn More!

Visit Us Or Contact Us:

Benjamin Roberts Solicitors
4 Wards End
Halifax, West Yorkshire HX1 1BX

Map & Directions

map
BACK TO TOP