Mark Brenlund
Mark is a solicitor with over 30 years' experience acting for defendant businesses in civil claims made against them, principally where the loss involves significant personal injury with damages running to £millions. He focuses on casualty and cyber policies and assists clients with coverage issues as well as claims.
Specialties include Health and Safety in the workplace; Property Damage; Animals Act; breach of duty to the public including through Occupier’s Liability, Defective Premises Act; Data Protection Act and general breaches of the Common Law, including misuse of private information,
Mark has considerable experience within the niche area of Modern Slavery having defended numerous claims by victims who were trafficked by an Organised Crime Group and put to work with insured parties who were unaware of their predicament.
In recent years, a significant proportion of Mark’s work has involved claimants with disproportionate pain and examining pain syndromes vs malingering.
Mark is used to representing household name insurance companies, including London Market, and blue-chip companies, as well as intermediaries such as claims management companies or loss adjusters.
As well as having worked for many years within the sporting sector for equine clients focusing on third party liability claims, Mark is also Legal and Commercial Director of Dartford Football Club and therefore has direct experience of managing a sports business.
He is noted in Legal 500 as “pragmatic”, “knowledgeable” and ‘”tactically astute” and clients recommend him for “considering cases and their intrinsic issues from every angle” (Legal 500 2017)
Notable cases:
Scarcliffe v Brampton Valley Group Ltd [2023] EWHC 1565 (KB) – successful defence of £6.2m in which the claimant was awarded only £275,000 which was well within the part 36 offer made ensuring a significant cost recovery.
Lloyd v Riverside Mechanical Ltd – representing one of 3 defendant’s in the litigated case of a 33 year paraplegic where there was insufficient evidence physical to explain the purported loss of movement in the lower limbs. The case involved consideration of Factitious Disorder and Functional Neurological Disorder. The case concluded for a fraction of the potential value across all three defendants notwithstanding liability dispute between all 3.