“He is very strong on his feet and very good at knitting together medical expert evidence to make sure it is coherent.”
Chambers & Partners 2025
“Friendly, knowledgeable, tactical and committed. Good on his feet and good at getting the judge on side, David anticipates the mood of the court and the flow of the evidence.”
The Legal 500 2025
"David is very strong on his feet and has good tactical awareness."
Chambers & Partners 2024
"David is very bright with great attention to detail."
David is a specialist in personal injury work mainly on behalf of claimants. He has a particular focus on complex quantum work. He is the author of the chapters on Contributory Negligence, Employer’s Liability Insurance, The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and Reporting and Enforcement in the eighteenth edition of Munkman on Employers Liability (2025). He has been recommended by both Chambers & Partners and The Legal 500 since he was eight years call.
Over the last twenty three years he has acted for many thousands of claimants. His highest settlement, being led by Paul Rose KC, was a lump sum award of £17.9 million. He has acted for a Deputy High Court judge who is now a Lord Justice of Appeal; a professional footballer; a senior police officer and an actor from EastEnders in his claim for injuries suffered whilst shopping in Selfridges.
Most recently, he appeared led by Ben Collins KC in Clarke v Poole, Borisenkov andGreat Lakes Insurance [2025] EWCA Civ 447 in an unusual, and successful application to re-open an appeal in respect of a stay that had been granted by HHJ Gargan, sitting as a deputy High Court judge that had been refused permission by Nicola Davies LJ. The application was under CPR 52.30 and succeeded with permission being granted on all grounds. The court found that had the LJ properly been directed to engage in the issue of personal autonomy that was appealed in the grounds of appeal she would have granted permission. The full appeal is expected to be listed in the autumn of this year. David has been instructed throughout the case and was due to do the trial on liability against two silks until it settled on a 100% basis against them both. The claim has a pleaded value of over 21 Million and the Defendant accepts over 5 Million will be recovered.
He appeared in Damian Grzegorz Tylus v Froneri Limited (2023) EWHC 1584 (KB) successfully setting aside judgment in a quantum assessment where the recorder (Mr Recorder Jackson) found that the Claimant, who has suffered an amputation injury when his finger became caught in a machine, could not claim the lifelong costs of a cosmetic prosthetic that he was already wearing because the effect on his was marginal and the six figure claim was excessive given that the Claimant could wear gloves or hide his hand when is company. Richie J gave permission to appeal on all eleven grounds and Mr Justice Sweetings final judgment was emphatic in its rejection both of the main conclusion of the trial judge to disallow the claim and additionally his finding that there should be a set off of the Defendants costs against the Claimant’s damages. The case has been remitted back for a new trial. Since then this case settled at three times the judgement sum.
David appeared led by Paul Rose KC in the unsuccessful appeal, Gul v MIB [2021] EWCA Civ 1503, for which permission had been granted on all grounds, by Bean LJ, for a 13 year old Claimant who suffered extremely serious injuries (he suffered a severe brain injury, amongst other injuries, he was agreed to lack capacity to litigate or manage his own affairs, have a significantly reduced life expectancy and severely impaired ability to communicate or articulate his thoughts which were themselves gravely impaired) when the Defendant, fleeing from the police who were chasing him with their lights and sirens on, at double the speed limit, down a very narrow road ploughed into him. Liability was admitted but given the size of the likely award it was argued by the Defendant that some reduction should be made for the 13 year old not seeing the speeding car and holding back or watching it and speeding up. Because it was such a narrow road the timings either way were a matter of seconds. HHJ Gargan reduced his damages by 10% and this was upheld on appeal as an unusual but justified reduction.
David successfully appeared for the Claimant in a decision of Mr Justice Foskett in Wright v First Group PLC EWHC 297 (QB) [2018] to allow an adjournment and give permission for the Claimant to change his accident reconstruction expert the day before a High Court trial on liability in a head injury road traffic accident claim. The Claimant’s reconstruction expert had collapsed in his joint statement such that the Defendant withdrew all of its offers and the Claimant was left facing a trial with both experts agreed that there was nothing that the Defendant could have done to avoid the collision. The High Court judge found that the decision was a difficult one but that on balance the trial should be adjourned and a new expert instructed for the Claimant. He ordered the Claimant to pay the Defendants costs of the application but not the trial as they could not demonstrate what loss they had suffered. Permission was given by Sharp LJ on paper for an appeal despite it being a case management decision, with permission to appeal the costs order to be considered once a transcript had been obtained. Jonathan Watt-Pringle KC was instructed for the Defendant. By the date of the Court of Appeal hearing a new expert had been instructed by the Claimant and a new joint statement completed in which all issues were not agreed. The Defendant made a six-figure offer which was accepted by the Claimant.
David succeeded by a majority in the Court of Appeal on behalf of the Defendant in the case of Iqbal v Home Office [2009] EWCA Civ 1310 (led by Michael Beloff KC) which has restated the law on both the tort of false imprisonment and nominal damages.
He graduated from Jesus College Cambridge in 2001. Whilst at Cambridge, he was awarded the ECS Wade Prize for the top first in administrative law, elected to a Squire Scholarship by the university for his exam performance, awarded the Lovells Prize for the top first in the college, and a College Scholarship for obtaining a first. He obtained a masters degree (LLM) from Cambridge in 2003. Grays Inn awarded him its top (Bedingfield) scholarship for the BVC and an award for pupillage as well as a prize for best speech from the floor in a debate on law reform. He was awarded the Joseph Petty Law Student Prize in 1998.
Professional Recommendations
“Friendly, knowledgeable, tactical and committed. Good on his feet and good at getting the judge on side, David anticipates the mood of the court and the flow of the evidence.”
The Legal 500 2025
“He is really bright and very good procedurally.”
Chambers & Partners 2025
“He is very strong on his feet and very good at knitting together medical expert evidence to make sure it is coherent.”
Chambers & Partners 2025
“David is very strong on his feet and has good tactical awareness.”
Chambers & Partners 2024
“David is an effective advocate who does a good job for his clients.”
Chambers & Partners 2024
“David is very bright with great attention to detail.”
The Legal 500 2024
“He is fearless.”
Chambers & Partners 2023
“David is an excellent advocate.”
Chambers & Partners 2023
“David is formidable on his feet and has good tactical awareness.”
Chambers & Partners 2023
“David’s strengths are his skills in delivering first-class client care and ensuring that the clients are in the safest of hands.”
Chambers & Partners 2023
“David is a bold and fearless advocate.”
The Legal 500 2023
“He is a bold and tactically shrewd advocate who is willing to stand his ground.” “A strong negotiator, who is excellent at teasing out the finer detail, and not afraid of a fight.”
The Legal 500 2022
“A fearless advocate who is also a good tactician. He knows how to make sure to push for clients and get the best results.” “He is very confident and good with clients, excellent on legal points and loves a fight.” “He makes sure to push for his clients to get the best results.”
Chambers & Partners 2022
“Incredibly bright and very good with clients. He’s a technical barrister, so he’s very good on the rules and is able to advise on tactical steps on the way forward.” “Very good tactically and a strong negotiator.”
Chambers & Partners 2021
“Tactically shrewd and not scared to run cases to trial.” “His advocacy skills are second to none; he is firm yet pragmatic and always has the client at the centre of his advice. Mr Rivers has a very warm approach with clients which engenders trust at an early stage.”
The Legal 500 2021
“He’s cool, calm and collected – a forensic operator.” “He’s well organised, always up to date, and able to provide intelligent insight into difficult cases.” “Very tactically astute.” “Extremely impressive on his feet.”
Chambers & Partners 2020
“He identifies strengths and weaknesses immediately and brings courtroom insight.”
The Legal 500 2020
“He’s really, really impressive on his feet and holds his own against far more senior barristers. he really stands out as an advocate.”
Chambers & Partners 2019
“His technical knowledge of statutes, regulations and case law is excellent. he is willing to fight the most complex of cases and is popular with clients.”
Chambers & Partners 2018
“Excellent grasp of detail, inspires confidence in his clients, not afraid of a fight.”
The Legal 500 2018
Expertise
Personal Injury
Acting predominantly for Claimant’s David has been involved in numerous trials, JSM’s and settlements which have recovered several hundred million pounds but is particularly keen on cases in which the first instance judge has decided a matter incorrectly. Having started out being brought in to appeal decisions where other counsel had lost the hearing below he has built up a significant list of cases in the appeal courts and High Court.
Clarke v Poole, Borisenkov andGreat Lakes Insurance[2025] EWCA Civ 447 – CPR 52.30 application after refusal of permission- when should a stay be granted for a prior genetic disorder.
Tylus v Fronteri Limited(2023) Leeds High Court – appeal against a Recorders decision on numerous grounds including costs.
Gul v McDonagh[2021] EWHC 97 (QB) – whether a 13 years old should have a reduction for Contributory Negligence in a context of a decision made in seconds during a police chase not involving him.
Wright v First Group PLC[2018] EWHC 297 (QB) – whether to adjourn a high court trial listed to start in a few days on the basis an accident reconstruction expert had collapsed in his Joint Report.
Shaw v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council[2014] EWCA 1678 – Claimant’s Part 36 indemnity costs order – when valid.
Iqbal v Home Office [2009] EWCA Civ 1310– False imprisonment of prisoners – whether there is a basis during a union backed illegal strike.
Fuk Wan Hau v Jim[2007] EWHC 3358– aggravated damages in assault cases.
Recent and current work
Relevant Work
David Rivers has successfully settled a very high profile Fatal’s Accident Act claim just before the Pre Trial Review of this claim. Leading counsel (Angus Withington KC) had been instructed for the Defendants, Homes for Harringay Ltd, in respect of the claim which arose out of an accident where the Claimant’s toddler aged son crawled out of a large window on the 9Th floor of a high rise accommodation block the lock to which had been reported as defective and in need of urgent repair six days earlier. The two repairers that attended were told to plyboard over the large window and leave it for a later crew to fix the lock. They were adamant that when they attended the Claimant refused to allow them to do that because of the effect on lighting in the flat. Expert engineers were instructed and the client, a very good and, from my point of view at least, extremely truthful witness, was adamant that this simply was not the case and that they attended without any plyboard at all and did not offer to do anything other than tightly shut the window. The tragic nature of this accident was such that the Claimant brought a claim for her psychiatric injury and both the BBC and the Guardian covered the accident. The Defendants made an offer that equated to just over half of the fully pleaded schedule which was accepted. The BBC Report is here and the Guardian report is here. David Rivers was instructed by Sernur Vasfi, of Miya Solicitors.
David Rivers has successfully concluded a Highways Act claim on behalf of a doctor, aged 39 at the time of settlement at a JSM on the 18th March 2025, for 1 million pounds gross of interim payments and CRU, which was Nil. This had been a very long running claim in respect of an accident that occurred on the 12th of December 2018 when the Claimant was aged 33. At that time, he was a Junior Doctor (now called a Resident Doctor) and had a particular interest in paediatric anaesthesia especially at GOSH. He had suffered a left lateral clavicle fracture and a ACJ injury (grade 3) to the left shoulder extending into the left suprascapular nerve. Although this was his non dominant arm that was injured, and he underwent two rounds of surgery (one is 2019 and one in 2023) that significantly improved his mobility there remained some restriction to the movement of his arm when he undertook regular and repeated work, and a low level of constant background pain aggravated by episodes of lancinating pain. He managed to become a consultant on the NHS in 2022 but changed to general anaesthesia rather than paediatric anaesthesia due to the physical nature of paediatric work. He had no loss of earnings from the NHS save for some ongoing loss of overtime and he continued to do private work however this was at a lower level than before and, due to the lack of supporting anaesthetic consultants on private wings at weekends (when most private work is done) he had to reduce this work significantly. The Claimant was a very stoical individual and it was only when counsel was instructed to review the quantum of the claim in 2024 that its true value became apparent. Instead of the more orthodox approach of nomination an expert in private anaesthesia work in London we served a set of supportive statements from other anaesthetic consultants who had a similar career route to the Claimant to show the contrast between his earnings and their earnings and calculated a multiplicand accordingly. The use of those statement was not contested by the Defendant despite time having long since past for their disclosure. Liability has always been admitted by the Defendant, which was a London Borough Council, although contributory negligence was very much still an issue. The Claimant cycled into a very large and wide hole that he did not see on his bike that was there to be seen in the roadway. It was dark but the area was quite well lit. Sam Ennis of Serious Injury Law acted for the Claimant in the latter part of the Case.
David Rivers won a two-day trial on the 5th and 6th March 2025 before HHJ Mitchell sitting in Bournemouth County Court assessing the quantum of a claim for a 74 year old lady who fell on water due to a defective fridge in ASDA. Liability was admitted with no suggestion that she was in any way to blame for the accident. This was a very unusual trial as it is extremely rare for the Defendant (in this case a very well-known superstore) in current times to contest a trial where liability is admitted and there is no allegation that the Claimant is fundamentally dishonest. The sums involved were at the modest end of counsel’s practice (Judgment was entered for £170,258 against an offer from the Defendant of £115,000 and with a Part 36 offer of £180,000 being made by the Claimant) however it is noticeable for two points. First, DJ Ashby refused the Claimant permission to rely on a care expert despite her obvious immobility over longer distances and stairs because the Claimant’s orthopaedic expert had not expressly said one was needed. HHJ Mitchell, by inference, felt this was the wrong decision as he allowed a significant part of her care at the aggregate rate despite only having the care being described by her family, and second because in awarding her an initial total of £82,500 in general damages he roundly rejected the suggestion that at her age there should be any reduction to her award to reflect age that is supported in authorities such as Laycock (1991), cited in most of main textbooks. He expressly found that at that age there is less that a Claimant can do and so the significant loss she had suffered by her Pilon fracture to her ankle, that had required many rounds of surgery to unite and over 200 Exogen sessions, were felt all the more keenly. David Rivers was instructed by Vicky Mills at True Law Solicitors, based in Newcastle.
Kilyafov v Sinclair (2024) Mayor and City Court: won a liability trial in a major brain injury case where the Claimant had sprinted into the path of a car driving on a straight road in the third lane of seven on the North Circular Road travelling (so the judge found) at 35MPH when the speed limit was 30 MPH. The accident happened at 4.50am when the Claimant accepted, he had drunk 5 shots of vodka and a beer, near a pedestrian crossing, and with no obvious motive. To succeed the Claimant had to show that the driver should have been travelling under the speed limit as a precaution because a driver driving at the speed limit would not have been able to stop in time. HHJ Hellman found that the driver should have been driving at 28 MPH, that the Defendant should have foreseen the remote possibility that the driver would sprint run into the north circular and should therefore have been more attentive. However, inevitably, he found that despite the high duties imposed to protect pedestrians, the Claimant was 60% to blame. The Defendant, who denied liability in its entirety, has not appealed.
Tylus v Fronteri Limited (2023) Leeds High Court : successfully setting aside judgment in a quantum assessment where the recorder (Mr Recorder Jackson) found that the Claimant, who has suffered an amputation injury when his finger became caught in a machine, could not claim the lifelong costs of a cosmetic prosthetic that he was already wearing because the effect on his was marginal and the six figure claim was excessive given that the Claimant could wear gloves or hide his hand when is company. Richie J gave permission to appeal on all eleven grounds and Mr Justice Sweetings final judgment was emphatic in its rejection both of the main conclusion of the trial judge to disallow the claim and additionally his finding that there should be a set off of the Defendants costs against the Claimant’s damages. The case has been remitted back for a new trial.
Gul v McDonagh [2021] EWHC 97 (QB) Junior counsel in this very significant brain injury trial both at first instance and in the court of appeal; a very rare example of a finding of 10% contributory negligence which was held onto by the Defendant for what was a very minor misjudgment in a 13 year old pedestrian which would usually have palled into nothing when measured against the serious criminal conduct of the Defendant. This is the latest guidance on contributory negligence in respect of children.
