Mark Diggle

Year called:
LLB (1st Class Honours), University of Glamorgan; LLM (Distinction), University of Nottingham.
Practice areas:
Personal Injury, Fraudulent Claims, Business and Property, Local Government, Professional Discipline and Regulation

Mark Diggle was called to the Bar in 1996.

He was born and brought up in Nottingham and attended a local comprehensive school.  He read for his law degree at the University of Glamorgan where he graduated with first class honours.  He then studied at the University of Nottingham where he obtained a Masters degree in International Commercial Law graduating with distinction.

During the time spent at the University of Nottingham, Mark was one of a team of two which represented the University at the Willem C Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot competing against twenty two universities from eighteen countries.  The University of Nottingham team was placed second with Mark being recognised as one of the competition’s ten best advocates.

Mark is a specialist in personal injury, fraudulent claims, business and property, local government and professional discipline and regulation  matters.

He regularly delivers lectures and talks to solicitors and other interested parties on topical legal subjects.  Recent subjects dealt with include forfeiture and relief and the tactical use of proceedings for negative declaratory relief in road traffic cases.

He is registered with the Bar Council to undertake Public Access work and is able to receive instructions directly from lay clients, as well as those on the traditional professional client basis.

Personal Injury

Mark has had a lively personal injury practice from the beginning of his career at the Bar, representing Claimants and Defendants in all manner of cases from employers liability to road traffic collisions.  More recently his personal injury practice has focused on cases with an international element.

Fraudulent Claims

The largest part of Mark’s personal injury practice is the defence of alleged fraudulent claims.

Much of his work relates to road traffic collisions and he has extensive experience of dealing with all manner of frauds including staged collisions (full and partial), stooge vehicle collisions, slam on collisions and low velocity impact defences.  Leading on from his road traffic fraud practice, Mark has also developed a practice acting in employers’ liability cases where there is an element of fraud involved, either staged accidents or exaggerating the level of injury.

Recently Mark has become involved in dealing with suspected fraudulent insurance claims most of which are extremely valuable and several of which have reached Court.

All areas of the insurance market are affected from travel insurance and household insurance to the insuring of motor vehicles and other property against damage by fire.  All fraud cases require detailed fact management as well as an ability always to keep the correct legal analysis of the case firmly at the forefront of preparation.  Finally, most crucial certainly at trial is a comprehensive knowledge of the law of evidence.

Business and Property

Since commencing practice in 1997 Mark has developed a large practice in this area.  His work includes all manner of contentious and non-contentious commercial and real property work.

Under this practice area Mark regularly conducts trials and carries out advisory work on paper and in conference.

As it suggests, the Business and Property area of practice is incredibly wide and Mark carries out all forms of work within this area.  By way of example, Mark has recently advised a local authority in the correct construction of a term in large commercial contract that it had entered into.  He conducted a case of domestic flooding from pre-issue to trial obtaining a favourable result on behalf of the client.

He regularly deals with all manner of commercial disputes including construction and general contractual disputes.

Mark also has a varied landlord and tenant practice dealing with all aspects of both residential and commercial leases including dilapidations, enfranchisement, breach of statutory duty and forfeiture.  He is well used to dealing with issues of unfair contract terms and causation in contract.

Also under this head, is Mark’s varied sale of goods property.  As with personal injury, Mark has a special interest in domestic cases with an international element.

Mark Diggle

Local Government

Mark has conducted prosecutions for local authorities in the areas of planning and benefit fraud both in the Magistrates and Crown Courts.

He is developing a practice in the area of licensing in particular Hackney Carriage and Private Hire vehicle licensing and liquor licensing.

In addition, Mark acts both for and against local authority landlords in cases concerning secure tenancies.  He also deals with homelessness applications both for and against local authorities.

Professional Discipline and Regulation

He has a particular interest in all areas of professional discipline and regulation.


Away from his practice at the Bar, Mark enjoys reading and playing squash and badminton.  He remains determined to obtain his private pilot’s licence notwithstanding an extremely long (and continuing) period of training.

Professional Membership

Personal Injuries Bar Association.

Professional Negligence Bar Association.

Reported cases

Forcelux Ltd. v. Binnie [2010] HLR 20 (case concerning the correct meaning of the word “trial” in Part 39.3 of the CPR and whether the first hearing of a possession claim is a trial so as to limit the Court’s powers to set aside an order made at that hearing.  The case also dealt with the correct interpretation of a covenant in the lease requiring the tenant to pay the landlord’s costs of forfeiture proceedings on the indemnity basis).

BSS Group plc v. Makers UK Ltd. [2011] EWCA Civ 809 (case concerning a dispute about the sale of goods.  In particular whether the purpose for which the goods were to be used had been communicated to the seller).

Long v. Tolchard & Sons Ltd. [2001] PIQR P2 (second junior counsel in a case where the Defendant successfully applied for permission to appeal a decision on limitation out of time and relying principally on evidence given by the Claimant at the quantum trial which had a bearing on his date of knowledge).