Sunny
Virk

Sunny regularly advises on cases involving applications for committal for contempt, following a finding of fundamental dishonesty or fraud in RTA claims. Previous instructions have included: - Appearing before HHJ Evans Sunny successfully persuaded the court in finding the Claimant had been fundamentally dishonest (liability admitted) in claiming storage charges and applying section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 effectively dis-applying QOCS. - Successfully defending a claim for personal injury and various special damages, demonstrating inflation on the claimant’s behalf - Forensic cross-examination to demonstrate dishonesty, resulting in the dismissal of claims expected to exceed £50,000 - Appearing before the HHJ Ambrose to defend a personal injury claim, reducing the sum claimed from over £15,000 to just £500

Past instructions in RTA and personal injury cases have included: - Acting for insurers to successfully demonstrate a claimant’s liability for an accident - Forensic analysis and cross-examination - Successful defence of a claim, ultimately avoiding a major payout by the insurer client - Causation and LVI (Low Velocity Impact)

- Elected to the 2022 Bar Council for a three-year term (commencing 1st January 2022) - Elected to the 2022 Bar Council for a three-year term (2013 - 2016) - The Honourable Society of Gray’s Inn

- Postgraduate Degree in Professional and Legal Skills - Bar Vocational Course - Inns of Court School of Law, London - Bachelor of Laws - LLB (Hons)

Credit Hire / PI Claims HM v IM & Ors. (Brentford County Court) – Jan 2023 Sunny represented the second defendant (the insurer) who would indemnify the first defendant. The first defendant had pursued his own personal injury claim (counterclaim) hence was represented by his own solicitors and counsel. The claimant / part 20 defendant was represented by Bond Turner as this was a “McAMS” case; and very importantly did not make a claim for personal injury (hence the claimant did not have costs protections pursuant to QOCS). Therefore, the situation was such that if the claimant / part 20 defendant won, then the insurer would have to pay damages and cost to him. Had a split liability finding been made then the insurer would still be on the ‘hook’, as the first defendant would be afforded QOCS protection on costs, and the insurer would pick up the tab for damages and costs. Decision Following Sunny’s cross examination the Judge dismissed both the claim and counterclaim on the premise that the claimant and first defendant had taken a risk. Accordingly the claimant was ordered to return interim payments paid by the insurer; and pay the insurer’s costs following summary assessment (QOCS would not apply). HR v SR & Ors. (Birmingham County Court) – Jan 2023 The claimant, who was 18 at the time of the accident, but 22 years of age by the time of trial, brought a claim against his mother (first defendant) and her insurers (second defendant). Sunny represented the insurer exclusively. The first defendant had not taken part in proceedings, and did not provide instruction save to say that the damages claimed by the claimant should be paid out in full. These instructions were adverse to the insurer's financial position and the claim was defended. Accordingly, the insurer made applications to (1) come off the record as representatives of the first defendant; and (2) to be joined as the second defendant, and defend the matter on quantum. These applications were listed to be heard on the day of the trial. The claimant opposed these applications (whole matter listed for 1 hour). The insurer had made an early, but very low, part 36 offer hence the central issue was whether the claimant was entitled to CBT; and whether the claimant should recover losses for psychological injuries which had still not resolved because no CBT was undertaken. Sunny argued that had the claimant taken up its intervention offer of CBT then the psychological injuries would have resolved sooner; and in any event, on examination of the evidence in detail, if the claimant did require CBT he would have undertaken the same on the NHS by now. Decision Having heard arguments, the Judge allowed both applications made by the insurer; and was also persuaded to proceed to trial on the same day. The Judge also found that the claimant had failed to mitigate his loss by not taking the CBT when it was offer to him by Defendant Insurers. Had the claimant taken this offer (which he should have) then he would have recovered much sooner. The Judge then went onto find that the that the claimant did not take the offer of CBT because he did not need it. Under cross examination, it was clear that he was someone who regularly used the NHS services; and had had access to a private sports physiatrist in the past. Accordingly, he was not awarded any monies for future CBT treatment. Fraud | Fundamental Dishonesty | s.57 | Causation Application / Reallocation PK v ADADAS (Slough County Court) – Jan 2023 Representing the defendant on behalf of his insurer at this hotly contested Costs and Case Management Conference; liability was conceded and quantum disputed. The claimant claimed for PSLA and special damages. The latter totals approximately £58,000, of which circa £42,000 is made up of credit hire charges alone. claimant solicitors have budgeted over £54,000 (not including vat) in their costs alone. To further complicate matters, the defendant was seeking various orders for specific disclosure; an expert engineering report; and joint forensic accountancy report (the latter to be followed by Part 35 questions). Sunny’s instructions were to do the best he could. Having considered the papers, he did believe (as did his solicitors) that there was a possibility for the matter to be allocated to the fast track. Ultimately, there was only one witness and he would take no more than a day to cross-examine. The reports, if obtained, were the subject of submissions. Decision The learned Judge agreed with Sunny and his instructing solicitors, and allocated the matter to the fast track. This means the claimant solicitors were restricted to fixed costs. The Judge was also persuaded to order the specific disclosure sought by the defendant; order the expert engineering report; and order the joint forensic accountancy report (followed by Part 35 questions). Road Traffic Accident | HGV & Large Vehicles Costs - L v M (Bristol County Court) [Sept 2020] | unreported Acting for insurers, Sunny defended a multi-track claim in the sum of circa £176,000, of which £156,000 was made up of credit hire charges. Following his cross-examination, the claimant solicitors agreed to settle the whole of the claim for £60,000. £116,000 was returned to insurance reserves. - S v T (Preston County Court) [2019] | Before HHJ Evans | unreported In defending a claim for personal injury, the pre-accident value of his vehicle, CBT treatment, physiotherapy charges and storage & recovery charges, the defendant insurers had admitted liability and made various interim payments, however, some elements of quantum remained in disputes. On Sunny’s advice the insurers did not concede storage charges. Following cross-examination Her Honour Judge Evans found the claimant had been fundamentally dishonest in claiming those storage charges and applied 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 effectively dis-applying Qualified One Way Costs shifting. - U & ANO v M (Clerkenwell & Shoreditch County Court) [2020] | unreported Sunny’s forensic cross-examination both claimants resulted in the claims being dismissed. He was able to demonstrate that there was no contact and no movement of the claimant’s vehicle that could have caused the claimants’ claimed injuries. The total claim and costs were expected to exceed £50,000, there being 3 claimants in total. - P v B (Birmingham County Court) [Dec 2020] | unreported Acting for insurers, Sunny successfully defended a claim for personal injury and various special damages. He demonstrated that the nature of the accident could be nothing short of contrived. Sunny successfully also argued, applying Kennedy v Cordia Services LLP [2016] UKSC 6, that the expert evidence was “bare ipse dixit” and carried little or no weight. In addition the court found the Claimant inflated his claim for special damages. Finding fundamental dishonesty the court dismissed the Claimant’s claim. Qualified One Way Costs Shifting was dis-applied. - S v ELBCC (Clerkenwell & Shoreditch County Court) [2018] | Before Judge Lenon QC | unreported Appearing before Judge Lenon QC, Sunny successfully persuaded the claimant to discontinue his claim following cross-examination. - M v Z (St Helen’s County Court) [2019] | unreported Acting for the defendant who insured Volvo HGV that had allegedly reversed into a vehicle, the case turned on the understanding of blind spots. Sunny was able to demonstrate that there were no relevant blind spots on the HGV in question as it was fitted with 7 mirrors split over 3 parts, covering all relevant angles. In cross-examination, he also established that the claimant was excited to go shopping and thus, on balance, more likely to have caused the accident. The claim was dismissed. - B v ES (Walsall County Court) [2019] | unreported Appearing before HHJ Rawlings on behalf of insurers in a quantum only dispute, Sunny succeeded in beating the defendant’s part 36 offer and successfully argued for a set off on costs. The residue of the Defendant’s costs were taken from the Claimant’s damages pursuant to CPR 44.14.1. In total Sunny assisted the insurer to avoid a claim and costs valued over £22,000. - R v ES & ANO (Walsall County Court) [2019] | unreported Appearing before HHJ Platts on behalf of insurers, Sunny succeeded in beating the defendant’s part 36 offer resulting in the claimant’s claim and costs being wiped out.