Robert Golin

Robert’s commercial practice includes claims relating to the sale of goods and the supply of services. He is happy to draft statements of case and advise on liability/tactics/quantum. He also has experience of landlord and tenant matters, with an emphasis on claims arising from disrepair and covenants to repair.

Robert’s recent cases include: a successful claim in a fast-track product liability dispute when flooring tiles fell onto the claimant’s foot from a poorly designed box (2015); the defence of a bicycle company following an RTA when a bicycle’s handlebars snapped (2014).

Robert deals with costs arguments on a daily basis. He regularly attends CCMCs in multi-track matters and has experience of the costs arguments relating to QOCS, fundamental dishonesty and abuse of process.

Robert acts for claimants and defendants in credit hire cases. He is happy to draft statements of case and advise on liability/prospects of success. He is well versed in all arguments surrounding enforceability, need, period, impecuniosity and rate.

He recently advised on the prospects of appeal when the trial judge introduced the rarely used principle of “non est factum” to find that a credit hire agreement was unenforceable.

Further, he recently acted for the claimant in a case that included a challenge to the enforceability of a credit hire agreement on the grounds that it had been entered as a result of misrepresentation. He argued, successfully, that a finding of misrepresentation renders a contract voidable, not void, and that the claimant had affirmed the contract by, inter alia, bringing proceedings.

Robert has experience of multi-day trials in connection with: unfair dismissal; whistle-blowing; discrimination because of disability, sex and race; harassment; unlawful deduction of wages; and wrongful dismissal.

He also acts in pre-trial hearings such as applications for interim relief and case management hearings.

Robert has given talks about: applications for interim relief under Section 128 of the ERA 1996; and TUPE 2006.

He has written articles about: the defence of “lock-out” and “strike action”; paid leave for parents in surrogacy arrangements; and the Simmons v Castle uplift in the context of the employment tribunal.

Robert has experience of dealing with suspected fraudulent claims, exaggerated claims, and low-velocity impact claims.

He co-authored an article on exemplary damages (claimed by defendants against fraudulent claimants) with Howard Cohen and is well versed in the costs arguments relating to QOCS, fundamental dishonesty and abuse of process.

Robert has acted, predominantly on behalf of the Defendant,  in numerous cases in which fundamental dishonesty and/or fraud has been raised.

In addition to dealing with medical  and engineering evidence, his cases have involved:

(a) recordings of post-accident telephone conversations with insurers;

(b) Facebook and other social media evidence;

(c) CCTV footage;

(d) previous statements given under caution to police officers.

Where Claimants have sought to discontinue late in the proceedings (on some occasions at the doors of Court), Robert has had success in terms of negotiating favourable costs agreements for Defendants.

He also has experience and success when acting for Claimants in cases where fraud or fundamental dishonesty has been alleged. In such circumstances, Robert has advised Claimants in conference and/or has represented them at trial.

Robert acts in a variety of common law matters, including: landlord and tenant issues, claims under the Animals Act, contractual disputes e.g. the sale of goods and provision of services.

Robert has experience of inquests and preliminary hearings. His recent cases have included the issue as to whether or not the coroner should hold an Article 2 inquest.

Robert’s insurance practice is varied. He represents insurers in matters related to: personal injury; RTA insurer, Article 75 and MIB issues.

His recent cases have focussed on claims made under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the European Communities (Rights Against Insurers) Regulations 2002. For example, he is involved in an ongoing dispute between contractual and statutory insurers as to their liability to meet an unsatisfied judgment against a negligent driver.

Robert’s practice encompasses the full spectrum of personal injury work, with a particular focus on road traffic accident, workplace accidents and occupiers liability claims.

He acts for both claimants and defendants in trials, CCMCs and interim applications. He has an active paperwork practice and is happy to draft statements of case, and advise on liability, quantum, and tactics.

Robert has experience in cross-jurisdictional RTA claims, cases brought under the Athens and Montreal conventions, and claims brought under EC Regulation No. 261/2004.

Recent cases include:

• Advising a firm of Claimant solicitors as to the post-Brexit causes of action available in RTA claims involving foreign drivers and insurers incorporated outside the jurisdiction.
• Acting for the Defendant in a challenge to jurisdiction following the Claimant’s without notice application for an extension of time for service of the claim form.
• Acting for the Claimant in an RTA case involving an insolvent Danish insurer, the Danish guarantee fund, and the UK-based MIB and FSCS.
• Acting in numerous flight cancellation claims under Article 7 of Reg. No. 261/2004.
• Drafting submissions for the Defendant airline in a claim brought under the CEDR Aviation Adjudication scheme.

Robert acts for both claimants and defendants in a range of clinical negligence matters.

Recent instructions include:

• Claim arising from “experimental” weight loss surgery not typically recommended in the UK
• Claim arising from failure to diagnose a Lisfranc injury resulting in necessity for fusion operation to foot
• Claim arising from failure to institute fluid monitoring resulting in severe dehydration in an uncommunicative patient