Previous Cases

Peter D.A. Hall ACII will head up the Civil Litigation Team from September 2017

Peter specialises in Insurance Law. He has acted on many High Court disputes in the UK involving coverage issues arising from policy interpretation/compliance, non disclosure/misrepresentation and fraud.

1)Peter Hall acted for a manufacturer whose substantial fire claim was denied by his insurance company because of an alleged breach of electrical maintenance certification. Case won and the team recovered thousands of pounds from the insurance company.

2)Peter Hall acted for a kitchen business that suffered damage by ‘flood’ and who had flood cover excluded under the insurance policy. The claim was pursued in the High Court where a six figure sum was recovered after the team argued that the claim should be honoured under the storm section of the policy.Thousands of pounds recovered from the insurance company.

3)Peter Hall acted for a restaurant/pub owner whose claim was denied because of alleged non disclosure. The team recovered thousands of pounds from the insurance company

4)Peter Hall acted for a manufacturer who had a fire. The claim was denied and the insurer alleged breach of a waste warranty.The team recovered thousands of pounds from the insurance company.

5)Peter Hall acted for a consumer who put in a claim to his insurance company after his car had been stolen but the insurer denied the claim based on allegations of fraud against the policyholder. The team recovered thousands of pounds from the insurance company.

Professional Negligence

Peter Hall has acted in a number of cases against professionals

In particular he has acted for:

1)A limited company who had its struck out because of a failure to provide security for costs . A 6 figure sum was recovered in the litigation due to the negligence on the part of the clients representatives at the time to advise as to the availability of ATE (After the Event Insurance).

2)A client whose substantial claim had been struck out because of a failure to serve the claim form in time. Peter recovered thousands of pounds from the client due to the failure of his then legal representatives to serve the claim form in time.

Franchise Disputes

Peter has acted successfully for a number of franchisees in High Court disputes with franchisors concerning  alleged breach of post termination covenants

Criminal Cases 

R v S (2018) - Robbery - Acquitted

The client had pleaded guilty to a violent robbery based on the advice of a different firm of solicitors who were representing him at the time. Whilst the Probation Service were completing their pre-sentence report, the client informed them that he was not guilty of the offence. He was facing a substantial custodial sentence. 

The client transferred solicitors to Tranters. We successfully applied for the guilty plea to be set aside and a trial date was listed.

He was found Not Guilty. 

R v C (Youth) (2018) - Armed Robbery - Prosecution Discontinued 

This case concerned a youth charged with several armed robberies in which the Crown relied upon mobile phone cell site evidence produced  by the police.

After liaising closely with a Cell Site Expert, we were able to successfully rebut the Crown’s suggestion that the client was present at the location of two robberies and as a result the Crown offered no evidence in relation to these allegations the week before the trial was due to start. The client was acquitted of these offences. 

R v G (2018) - Armed Robbery - Acquitted

The client had been charged with an offence of armed robbery. The prosecution sought to rely on CCTV and forensic evidence. 

Tranters made representations to the Crown Prosecution Service that there were serious flaws in the evidence compiled against the client. The Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence against the client and the client was formally found Not Guilty of the offence. 

R v S (2018) - Section 20 Assault – Acquitted

This case concerned a client who had been charged with one count of Section 20 Assault Occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm.  The prosecution sought to rely on police body cam footage and audio recordings of a 999 call. 

Tranters successfully made representations to the Crown Prosecution Service that the evidence they sought to rely on was inadmissible hearsay evidence under the doctrine of Res Gestae. The Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence against the client and the client was formally found Not Guilty of the offence. 

R v J (2016) - Rape – Acquitted

The client faced two allegations of Rape which were denied on the grounds of consent.

Following a 6 day trial at Crown Court the client was acquitted of both charges. Part of the defence case involved the making of a complex legal argument to adduce evidence of the Complainant’s prior sexual history, which was admitted as evidence following a lengthy argument before the trial judge.

R v H (2016) - Rape and Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm – Acquitted

The client faced allegations of Rape and two counts of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm against his former partner. The case was complicated by the fact that both parties suffered with severe mental health difficulties.

During a 6 day trial at Crown Court, Tranters comprehensively established that any sexual activity between the parties had been consensual. Our advocates also scrutinised the prosecution evidence in relation to the two alleged Assaults in order to fully disprove them. The client was acquitted on all counts.

R v B (2015) - Murder - Alternative Plea to Manslaughter

The prosecution's case was that the client had murdered his mother with a kitchen knife, stabbing her in excess of 130 times.

Tranters established that the client suffered with extensive mental health problems and secured an alternative plea to Manslaughter on the basis of Diminished Responsibility. The client received a Hospital Order.

R v D (2015) - Rape – Acquitted

This case involved a historic rape allegation dating from 2010 when the client was serving overseas in the UK military. Following a 5 day Crown Court trial it took the jury less than 14 minutes to return a Not Guilty verdict after Tranters' advocates successfully established the defence of consent.

R v D (2014) - Rape – Acquitted

The client faced two charges of rape. The prosecution claimed that the client, along with a co-defendant, had jointly raped the complainant who had withdrawn their consent to any previous sexual activity. By examining the inconsistent statements of the complainant at trial, Tranters effectively argued that any sexual activity the client had been a party to was at all times consensual. The client was acquitted of both counts of rape.

R v B (2013) - Attempted Murder and Section 18 Wounding – Acquitted

The client was charged with attempted murder and section 18 wounding with intent in the alternative. They had lost their liberty, having been held on remand pending trial. The prosecution alleged that the client had been involved in an argument with his girlfriend when a group of 4 males tried to intervene.  The prosecution case was that the client had then produced a knife and stabbed one of the males in the stomach, before being pursued away. Our advocates were able to successfully raise self-defence, evidencing that the 4 males in question were in fact attempting to rob the client at knife point during the incident. Furthermore, our solicitors successfully rebutted a prosecution allegation of recent fabrication by presenting previous consistent statements from the client to the Court. The client was acquitted of all counts and immediately released.

R v C (2011) - Section 18 Assault, False Imprisonment and Torture – Acquitted

The client was an 18 year old suffering from autism who was charged with a section 18 assault involving false imprisonment and torture. Our advocates effectively scrutinized issues of the client’s participation in a joint enterprise and successfully challenged admission of his bad character at trial. The client received an acquittal.

R v C (2011) - Sexual Assault - Prosecution Discontinued

Tranters represented a client who was unfit to stand trial due to his learning disabilities. Although the Court found that the client had committed an action that constituted outraging public decency, the Crown accepted representations made by our solicitors that a separate act of sexual assault had not been made out.

Get In Touch