Kedar Karandikar is a Solicitor-Advocate (Higher Courts Civil Proceedings) who blogs on a range of issues from the past, present and future. He graduated in Law from the University of Durham in 1997, qualifying as a Solicitor of the Senior Courts in 2005 and a Solicitor-Advocate (Higher Courts Civil Proceedings) in 2012.

Kedar Karandikar is in the process of writing a dissertation on the use of concurrent expert evidence (‘hot-tubbing’) in Personal Injury (PI) claims and its application in catastrophic injury claims, credit hire claims and low velocity impact claims.

Kedar Karandikar has acted for insurers, claims handling agents and loss adjusters in liability, quantum and indemnity claims arising from road traffic accidents, employers’ liability and public liability disputes, acted for Claimants with minor to spinal cord injuries, conducted advocacy at inquests and contested interim applications and case management hearings, negotiated on both settlements and costs and managed litigated files and provided coaching, development and guidance. His specialities include Personal Injury claims, expert evidence, offers to settle and Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules, low velocity impact claims, credit hire claims, diminution in value claims and premature issue of proceedings claims.

Kedar Karandikar’s areas of interest include:

The judiciary’s control over expert evidence using the Pre-action Protocols and Part 35 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Guidance on case management involving low velocity impact claims and credit hire claims.

Future proposals for the development of expert evidence.

Kedar Karandikar’s reported cases include:

McStea v Sanderson Young Ltd (2008) CLY 303 - where a Claimant’s letter before action was effectively an ultimatum and there had been no realistic attempt to negotiate, costs were assessed by reference to the fixed recoverable costs that the Claimant would have received if the case had been settled without litigation.

Lockley v Lea (2001) CLY 518 – where it was not unreasonable conduct to settle a case at a later stage after the service of evidence following standard directions 14 days before the hearing.

Smith v Loughlin (2000) CLY 1484 - a loss in vehicle damage (diminution in value) claim, where the deciding factor in dismissing the claim was the basis that there was no evidence about the standard of repairs that had been carried out.