- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Civil Fraud
- Clinical Negligence & Healthcare
- Commercial & Chancery
- Court of Protection
- Construction & Property
- Credit Hire
- Crime
- Family Law
- Financial Crime
- Inquests & Inquiries
- Personal Injury
- Police Law
- Professional Negligence
- Public Sector & Human Rights
- Regulatory & Disciplinary
- Travel & Cross Border Claims
Thom Dyke interviewed by The Advocacy Tutor
Thom Dyke was interviewed by Sonia Simms for The Advocacy Tutor Brief. Spotlight on Thom Dyke Thom Dyke, is a barrister at Deka Chambers. His practice spans serious crime, human rights, prison law, and police law. He is regularly instructed in sensitive and high-profile matters, especially…
Case note: liability decision in Brown v Morgan Sindall Construction and Infrastructure Ltd [2025] EWHC 2204 (KB)
Findings of Fact The Claimant was injured while cycling along a temporary two-way cycle lane adjacent to the Defendant’s construction site, when his bicycle struck the unmarked base of a Kingpin cycle bollard from which the vertical wand had been removed, leaving a raised dark…
The Dekagram: 22nd September 2025
In this week’s travel law Dekagram, Anirudh Mandagere examines a case which is required reading for all solicitors and others who litigate claims, and Tom Collins considers the interface between employment and personal injury claims, including an assessment of the doctrine of state immunity. Meanwhile,…
The Dekagram: 15th September 2025
This week we have a bumper issue dealing with a number of crucial developments: Andrew Spencer considers an oft-neglected aspect of local standards evidence, Julia Brechtelsbauer brings us up to date on the Quest for Videolink Evidence, and Megan Bithel-Vaughan examines the recent guidance of…
The Dekagram: 8th September 2025
This week we consider yet another case on expert evidence, and a decision bringing clarity on the new(ish) jurisdictional gateway relating to contractual claims. And as if that were not enough, after a break over the summer the dekinar series is returning with aplomb, with…
The Dekagram: 1st September 2025
There seems to be a never-ending supply of judgments in which experts come in for criticism. This week is no exception, although as a change the judge in the latest case also criticised two of the defendants for failing to give evidence at trial, and…
The Dekagram: 26th August 2025
This week Tom Clarke addresses the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010, a double edged sword if ever there was one – whilst, on the one hand, it can provide a lifeline for claimants seeking redress from insolvent defendants, it is not without its…
The Dekagram: 18th August 2025
This week we bring news from the gastric coalface; Dr Russell Wilcox examines a recent decision on appeal relating to a sickness claim. The judgment makes for illuminating reading, not least for the exploration of the parties’ expert evidence, and the pivotal role played by…
The Dekagram: 11th August 2025
There seems to have been a rash of cases involving criticism of expert evidence lately, and this week is no exception; Dominique Smith brings us news of yet another case in which an expert has been found wanting. Meanwhile, Robert Parkin tells us of more…
DHV v Motor Insurers’ Bureau [2025] EWHC 2002 (KB) and [2025] EWHC 2038 (KB): Quantifying Claims under Foreign Law
In a recent judgment Dexter Dias J has given guidance on the approach to be taken to the quantification of a road traffic claim governed by Spanish law; his comments on Recital 33 to Regulation (EC) No.864/2007 (“Rome II”) are however applicable to all foreign…
Split trials, preliminary issue trials and clear bright lines
The terms ‘split trial’ and ‘trial of preliminary issues’ are often used interchangeably. They do however play distinct roles: this article reviews the difference between them and provides a summary of the factors to be taken into account by a court when considering whether to…
The Dekagram: 4th August 2025
The Dekagram: 4th August 2025 This week John Schmitt brings you a further reminder that judgments must be adequately reasoned, but that the responsibility for eliciting adequate reasoning rests (at least partly) on the parties’ representatives. It would seem that the Court of Appeal takes…
Subscribe to our mailing list
Deka Chambers: 5 Norwich Street, London EC4A 1DR
- T +44 (0)20 7832 0500
- E clerks@dekachambers.com
- DX LDE 439
