Matthew Reynolds was a strong strapping lad who earned good money – £80,000 a year – as a welder at the Tata Steel works in Port Talbot, South Wales. He had already bought his own flat and his future was bright.

Then one day as he was welding steel a large heavy refractory brick in the roof of the works came loose and fell 150 feet hitting him on the side of his back. His injuries confined him at the time to a wheelchair, cost him his well paid job, and damaged his spine so he can’t easily move his neck and caused other painful injuries. He had to sell his flat in Port Talbot at a loss ( it was up a flight of stairs) and move back home with his mother in rural Lincolnshire. Today he can barely hobble around, needs help to dress himself and has very little likelihood of getting another job.

This story is not about his injuries -horrendous as they are – but what happened when he tried to claim compensation from Tata Steel so he could live a reasonable life as a disabled person who would always need expensive help and care.

Any reasonable person would expect a multinational company run by a billionaire to pay substantial compensation, especially as the incident had to be reported to the Health and Safety Executive and the company admitted liability.

But in today’s world corporate responsibility is not that straightforward or even ethical. Tata Steel appear to employ health insurers to assess their responsibility and the offer made to Matthew was less than his annual salary – over £50,000 – for a lifelong injury. The figure based on 6 per cent of his claim was recommended by Tata’s health insurers – either coincidently or in line with initial payments offered to sub postmasters.

Just £9500 initial compensation for being left in a wheelchair

As a result he has had to use the county court system for the last SEVEN years to put in a claim and it remains unpaid at the moment. The only money he has received is an initial interim payment of £9500.

Tata, Dousan Babcock, who were managing the site, and Primetals Technologies Ltd- combined to oppose his claim seem to be relying solely on the initial assessment made at accident and emergency department in October 2018 which found no bones were broken but there was serious damage to soft tissue. However three independent specialist doctors have linked other serious damage to himself to the accident. Three and half years later, Mr Caspar Aytott, of Cheltenham Spine Centre found the severe pain had spread from his lower back into his flank, up to his chest into the shoulder and neck with difficulty raising his left arm. This is despite having physiotherapy and two spine injections which had no effect.

Then a rheumatologist found 20 months later that he still had chronic pain and was suffering from fibromyalgia and post traumatic stress disorder due to the accident. A third independent doctor, Karen Simpson, who examined him found he had damaged nerves and wanted him to have rehabilitation which he never got.

What was clear was that he was not returning to full health and getting worse not better. In the meantime his case was dragging on through the slow county court system, which has been heavily exposed by the Commons Justice Committee in a recent report. See my story on this blog here.

During the proceedings that followed his solicitor, supposed to be a family friend who offered to take his case on a ” no win, no fee” basis gave him spectacularly bad advice. This included him cancelling his GMB union subscription, not getting a crucial Health and Safety Executive report on the accident and losing all his original wage slips so a judge could not give him a substantial interim payment at another hearing.

So bad was his role that a judge took a rare decision to remove him from representing Matthew on the grounds of bad communication and mismanagement. There is even an allegation that while representing Matthew he was trying to arrange a dinner with Tata’s leading solicitor in London, Leanne Conisbee.

Matthew and his mother Denniel were meanwhile getting poorer by the minute, racking up the maximum on Matthew’s credit cards, their house faced repossession and a huge bill from their solicitor for handling their case. His mother ended up taking a equity loan on the house. They now rely on food banks to eat and have to pay court fees for every hearing in his case. They have an old Fiat 500 to get around with an adapted front seat as Matthew is in pain if he bends his back.

In desperation Matthew from a wheelchair supervised some men at work to get money for the fees. He did not declare this to court and the lawyers for Tata were tipped off and pounced accusing him of being ” fundamentally dishonest” for not doing so.

After the solicitor had been taken off the case the bundles were returned to Matthew. Included was an email sent to Rodney Fern, a barrister who had tried to prevent the solicitor being removed from the case, which revealed the dirty tricks being prepared by Tata against Matthew.

It read: ” the insurers, as you rightly say, are going to try and starve Matthew Reynolds out. They are not going to withdraw the application on fundamentally dishonesty as this is to be used as a bargaining tool. although it is without any substance.”

Tata’s lawyers said he was ” fundamentally dishonest” in court

I saw it used at Doncaster County Court this year when Matthew tried to get an interim payment. It had to be refused by a sympathetic judge because the law says anybody judged to be ” fundamentally dishonest” cannot be paid. The barrister for Tata was determined he would not get any money.

The situation has now escalated. Last month Matthew asked for a longer period as a litigant in person to prepare for this week’s hearing. He wanted a longer hearing of 10 days, wanted to call 16 extra witnesses including people who witnessed the accident and professional medical people.

All this was refused by both the circuit judge William Hanbury, a former property and local government barrister and senior circuit judge, Mark Gargan. Seven years ago Mark Gargan was found to have given a wrong judgment by the court against a terminally ill claimant in a personal injury claim against a firm when he threw out his case claiming he and his lawyers had ” flagrant disregard” for the rules. The case was reported in the Law Society Gazette here.

The judge took the decision despite receiving a letter from Matthew’s new Labour MP, Lee Pitcher, who represents Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme.

In it he points out that Matthew, through no fault of his own, has lost his lawyers and is now fighting three large corporations having to navigate ” complex legal proceedings at significant financial and emotional cost”.

He adds: ” it is difficult to see how this can be viewed as a fair and balanced process. That an individual in such a vulnerable position should be left to fight such a case unaided, while the companies involved have already accepted liability, raises serious questions about access to justice.”

“Mr Reynolds has shown remarkable courage in pursuing this case and deserves to be treated with dignity and fairness without.”

His GP also sent a letter to the court saying Matthew was in no fit state to conduct the case and the hearing should be delayed but this was rejected by the judge. Using rather twisted logic the judge rejected this saying even with a delay Matthew would still be in the same state of health in the future – something the big corporations are trying to deny in their case.

He was sent 1500 pages of evidence from the three corporations and given 10 days to digest it and respond before the hearing. He told the judge: ” OK I’ll give these barristers/ solicitors a welding manual. I’ll set them up, give them the equipment ..you’ve got 5-10 days to go for a perfect weld.”

The hearing never went ahead this week. Both Matthew, who had a week of sleepless nights, and his pensioner mother were too ill to attend and drive to the court in Sheffield. I contacted the clerk to the case to find out what would happen next but was told there was no hearing for the rest of the week.

The only new development is that lead solicitor, Leanne Conisbe from Clyde and Co in the City of London has submitted a 74 page victim impact statement – claiming that she and not Matthew had suffered as a result of organising the case. The judge has ruled out his mother putting in a four page victim impact statement.