Sunny Virk

Sunny is often instructed by law firms and insurance companies in a number of complex matters. Previous instructions have included:

• Defending multi-track claims of sums over £150,000
• Arguing against quantum in a fast-track claim, reducing the credit hire charges claim from £13,767.60 to only £956
• Reducing a credit hire claim from circa £23,000 to circa £5,000
• Successfully defeating a claimant’s application to rely on fresh witness evidence (supporting a claim for circa £12,000 of credit hire charges) four weeks prior to trial

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.

• 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.

Fraud | Fundamental Dishonesty | s.57 | Causation

• 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.

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

• 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.

Costs

• 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.

1. This is a privacy notice that describes how, why and for how long I will process or keep your personal data in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (‘GDPR’).
2. The GDPR governs how an individual’s personal data is used, and your rights in relation to that data.
3.  I, Sunny Virk, have been instructed by you or your litigation friend (usually a parent), through your solicitor or agent, or via the Bar Pro Bono Unit.
4.  It is necessary for me to process your personal data in order for me to provide you with legal services, for example:

• Advise on the prospects of litigation;
• Advise on the value of your claim;
• Representation at a court hearing;
• Representation at trial;
• Advise, review or comment on legal issues or evidence.

5. Processing means anything done to data such as: recording, organising, adapting, altering, copying, consulting, transmitting, combining, erasing or storing it.

6.The processing for the purposes listed above will take place in accordance with either Article 6(1)(a) GDPR or Article 6(1)(b) GDPR, depending on how you instructed me.

7. If you have instructed me on a direct access basis, or engaged a solicitor (or legal agent), to assist you in bringing or defending a claim then the processing is necessary to perform a contract to which you are a party (Article 6(1)(b) GDPR). To give effect to that contract (i.e. to bring a claim) it is necessary for me to process your personal data for litigation purposes.

8. If I am assisting you on a pro bono basis, it will be necessary for me to seek your consent to be able to represent you (Article 6(1)(a) GDPR). In this scenario, you will be sent a consent form.

Recipients of your data

9.  I may also be required to share your data with others, depending on the nature of your case. This may include:

(i)  Courts and other tribunals to whom documents are presented;

(ii) Your solicitors, or agent representing you, through whom I have been instructed;

(iii) Potential witnesses, experts and other persons involved in the case;

(iv) Solicitors, barristers, or other legal representatives;

(v) Ombudsman and regulatory authorities;

(vi) Education and examining bodies; and

(vii) Current, past or prospective employers.

Special Categories of Data

10.  In some cases I will have been given your personal data that is within the ‘special categories’ of data described in GDPR Article 9(1). For example, personal data that reveals your race, ethnicity, sexual preferences, political or religious beliefs, trade union membership or health. There are also restrictions for processing information regarding criminal convictions.

11. This type of personal data will only be processed where it is necessary in order to represent you in your legal claim, or advise on the prospects of a legal claim.

Retention

12. I will retain your personal data for no longer than is necessary, and where it is possible, I will anonymise your data.

13. How long your personal data is kept will depend on a number of factors. The retention period will be reviewed when the service I am providing you with is complete. However in general, I am obliged by the Bar Code of Conduct to retain records of my cases, and by HM Revenue and Customs to retain records for 6 years.

14. Once your case has concluded and fees have been paid, I shall retain only the personal data necessary for the following purposes:

(i) The legal and professional obligation to retain information relating to my cases;

(ii) To check for any potential conflict of interests that may arise in the future when I am instructed on other cases;

(iii) For use in the defence of potential complaints, legal proceedings or fee disputes;

(iv) To refer back to in future cases which raise similar legal, factual, or procedural issues.

15. The processing for the purposes listed in paragraph 14 (ii), (iii), and (iv) above, will take place in accordance with Article 6(1)(f) GDPR. That is, for the purposes of legitimate interests that are not outweighed by your interests or fundamental rights and freedoms.

16. The processing for the purposes listed in paragraph 14(i) above, will take place in accordance with Article 6(1)(c) GDPR. That is, the processing is necessary for me to comply with a legal obligation. 

Your Rights

17. Where processing of your personal data was based on your consent (see paragraphs 6 and 8) you have the right to withdraw that consent at any time. This does not affect the lawfulness of the processing based on consent before its withdrawal.

18. Withdrawal of your consent to process such data will most likely mean that I am no longer able to provide you with the legal services you seek.

19. You may request confirmation that your personal data is being processed by me and details about the personal data, the source, the processing, the purposes of the processing, the recipients and the retention period.

20. You may request a copy of your personal data that is being processed by me. You may also request rectification (i.e. correction) where there are inaccuracies in the personal data.

21. You have the right to object, on grounds relating to your particular situation, at any time, to processing of your personal data in paragraph 14 of this privacy notice. Should you object, the processing will only continue where there are compelling legitimate grounds for the processing which override your fundamental rights, freedoms and interests. 

22. Where the processing or retention of your data is necessary for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims, it will not be possible to object. 

23. You have the right to request that your personal data is erased where any of the following apply:

(i) The personal data are no longer necessary in relation to the purposes for which they were collected or otherwise processed;

(ii) You withdraw your consent where the basis of processing was based on consent and where there is no other ground for the processing;

(iii) Where your fundamental rights, freedoms and interests override the legitimate interests of processing in paragraph 14;

(iv) The personal data has been unlawfully processed; or

(v) The personal data have to be erased to comply with a legal obligation.

24. You have the right to request that your personal data is restricted from processing, so that it is simply stored, for the following reasons: as an alternative to deletion; so that it can be corrected; for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims; to verify if a legitimate ground exists (paragraph 14).

25. Where it is necessary to correct your personal data, or you have requested the restriction or erasure of your personal data, I shall endeavour to contact the recipients of the personal data, unless this involves disproportionate effort. 

Security

26. I take appropriate physical and technical procedures to safeguard your personal data to prevent it from being accidentally lost, used or accessed in an unauthorised way. 

Complaints or Queries

27. If you have any questions regarding this privacy notice, or how I use your personal data please email me: mailto: sunny.virk@tbgbarrister.co.uk, or my clerks: clerking@thebarristergroup.co.uk telephone 01823 247 247.

28. I shall aim to respond as soon as possible, and within 30 days.

29. You have the right to complain to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) if you believe I have not handled your request in an appropriate manner. For information on contacting the ICO please go to: https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/