Home / People / Gregor Woods
Portrait of Gregor Woods

Gregor Woods


CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP
1-3 Charter Square
S1 4HS
United Kingdom
Languages English

Gregor Woods is a partner in our Insurance and Reinsurance Group team, based in Sheffield. He has 30 years’ experience advising insurers, large corporates and public bodies in relation to the investigation and defence of personal injury claims.

Gregor joined CMS from Kennedys in 2021, where he was Head of their national Employers’ and Public Liability Group. He handles all types of personal injury claim, including disease, psychiatric injury and claims of utmost severity. For over 15 years Gregor has focused particularly on working closely with large corporate insureds to help them investigate incidents, capture evidence and improve claims defensibility, thereby reducing claims cost. He recognises the value of close collaborative working between insurer, insured and lawyer to improve outcomes.  

Gregor regularly delivers training to insurers and insureds on relevant topics, including most recently: the employer’s duty of care during the pandemic, causation in relation to Covid infection, the changing landscape of employer/employee relations and vicarious liability. He collaborates with regulatory, employment and cyber risk specialists to provide wide-ranging advice on risk and crisis management to clients. The legal landscape is evolving rapidly, as are the needs and demands of insurer clients and their insureds. Gregor believes law firms need to respond imaginatively, to develop and deliver innovative solutions to their clients’ legal problems and, by doing so, create and sustain long term client relationships. 

more less

Relevant experience

  • A production company in respect of a claim by an injured stunt performer seeking damages for life changing injury sustained when filming.
  • A construction company sued by Irish national who sustained multiple orthopaedic, internal and psychiatric injuries on a construction site in England. 
  • A landlord in respect of a claim for chronic pain following the collapse of a ceiling onto her. 
  • A construction company, one of five defendants sued by a construction worker who sustained catastrophic injuries when the platform he was working on collapsed.
  • A security company whose former employee developed mesothelioma in respect of alleged exposure with an earlier employer over 30 years previously. 
  • An entertainment company sued by a visitor who was flung from one of their rides and who, it was alleged, developed subtle brain injury as a consequence.
  • A roofing company sued by a contractor who fell through a rooflight some 15 metres, sustaining life-changing injuries.
  • A large corporate food catering company sued by a former senior executive who alleged she had developed disabling depression and anxiety as a consequence of stress at work.
  • A delivery company whose lorry ran over an elderly pedestrian resulting in the amputation of his leg.
  • A private emergency services company whose ambulance driver, responding to an emergency call, collided with a turning vehicle, a collision which resulted in multiple significant injuries to the driver and 3 passengers.
more less


  • 1991 – LPC, College of Law, Chester.
  • 1990 – LLB (Hons) University of Lancaster, Lancaster.     
more less


Sun­set Strip: the Re­tained EU Law (Re­voc­a­tion and Re­form) Bill and its...
Hav­ing re­tained EU law un­der the European Uni­on (With­draw­al) Act 2018 (EU­WA), which came in­to force on 31 Decem­ber 2020, the Gov­ern­ment has put in train the pro­cess by which such “re­tained law” is...
On the rocks - HSE pub­lishes new guid­ance on silica ex­pos­ure
The Health and Safety Ex­ec­ut­ive (HSE) has re­cently up­dated its pub­lished guid­ance on silica ex­pos­ure, ahead of a pro­gramme of in­spec­tions that will re­quire em­ploy­ers to demon­strate the safety meas­ures...
Su­preme Court re­fuses per­mis­sion to ap­peal “horse­play” li­ab­il­ity judg­ment
The Su­preme Court has re­jec­ted an ap­plic­a­tion by a claimant for per­mis­sion to ap­peal in a case in­volving per­son­al in­jury fol­low­ing an act of dan­ger­ous horse­play by the de­fend­ant’s em­ploy­ee. The Court...
Ac­tion­able dam­age in isol­a­tion
The de­cision in Kee­gan v In­de­pend­ent In­sur­ance Com­pany Ltd & Zurich In­sur­ance PLC [2022] EWHC 1992 (QB) con­cerns the Third Party (Rights Against In­surers) Act 2010 and may be sig­ni­fic­ant as re­gards the...
As Deep Blue Something put it – “You'll say we've got noth­ing in com­mon”
The High Court in Lon­don has de­cided that a group of circa 3,500 claims for noise-in­duced hear­ing loss can­not pro­ceed via a single claim form. Back­ground In Dav­id Ab­bott & Oth­ers v Min­istry of De­fence...
Part 45 - Fixed costs dis­ap­plied when parties con­tract out in con­sent or­der
The Court of Ap­peal has ruled out the ap­plic­a­tion of Part 45 fixed costs where parties have ex­pressly agreed on a de­tailed as­sess­ment of costs in­stead. Back­ground In Doyle v M&D Found­a­tions & Build­ing...
Ac­tion­able dam­age? A mixed ques­tion of law and fact
Due to the long latency peri­od of meso­the­lioma, routinely many dec­ades after ex­pos­ure, such claims present nu­mer­ous chal­lenges. Aside from the scarcity of doc­u­ments and wit­nesses, many former em­ploy­ers...
Six­teenth edi­tion of the Ju­di­cial Col­lege Guidelines – what’s new?
On 11 April 2022, the Ju­di­cial Col­lege Guidelines (JCG) 16th Edi­tion was pub­lished, su­per­sed­ing the 15th Edi­tion, which was pub­lished on 26th Novem­ber 2019. The Guidelines are the go-to tool for lit­ig­at­ors...
In­surers eager to un­der­stand pre-ac­tion pro­tocol change
This art­icle first ap­peared in In­sur­ance Day, March 2022.Plans to change pre-ac­tion pro­to­cols in the UK have pro­voked con­sid­er­able dis­cus­sion among in­surers and so­li­cit­ors. In this art­icle, Gregor Woods...
Fore­see­ab­il­ity of in­jury in oc­cu­pa­tions with in­her­ent risk: emer­gency ser­vices...
The High Court has con­sidered on ap­peal the ap­plic­a­tion of the test of fore­see­ab­il­ity when as­sess­ing breach of duty in oc­cu­pa­tions with in­her­ent risk such as the po­lice, fire, am­bu­lance and pris­on ser­vices...
Re­la­tion­ship between self-em­ployed dent­ists and dent­al prac­tice not “akin...
The Court of Ap­peal has provided help­ful ob­iter com­ments on the first limb of the test for vi­cari­ous li­ab­il­ity, namely the re­quire­ment that the re­la­tion­ship between the wrong­do­er and the de­fend­ant be...
Is de­scrib­ing Part 36 as a self con­tained code a Mis­take? Part 36 ac­cept­ance...
In a de­cision which may have come as a sur­prise to many leg­al prac­ti­tion­ers, the High Court has re­cently de­term­ined that the con­trac­tu­al doc­trine of mis­take can ap­ply to Part 36 of­fers and that its ap­plic­a­tion...