Spike has a busy and growing practice encompassing all aspects of road traffic litigation, as well as public and employers’ liability claims. He regularly appears in the County Courts in fast track trials as well as interim applications and case management hearings. He also accepts instructions in drafting and advisory work.

Spike was called to the Bar in 2024 and joined 8DB in July 2025 following the completion of a mixed common law pupillage. He has experience in a range of civil cases, as well cases in the Family Court, and the Magistrates' Court, where he both prosecuted and defended. Prior to pupillage, Spike worked as a Senior Immigration and Asylum Caseworker at a national legal aid firm (2022–2024), where he worked on several high profile cases in the High Court and above.

Spike frequently succeeds in defending claims on liability following effective cross-examination. He regularly achieves significant reduction in quantum, and even dismissal, with oral submissions. Spike is adept at viewing the case from a judicial perspective and targeting his advocacy on the issues that matter to the judge, whether that be critical details, the wider context or thinking outside the box for a solution.

Spike is regulated by the Bar Standards Board (BSB) and holds a current practising certificate.

Spike's relevant cases include:

• GS v SI (2024) – The claim was dismissed on liability grounds after the claimant had conceded negligently breaching the Highway Code. The Judge also found quantum unproven, after the claimant had to concede in cross-examination that the repair invoice contained repairs for non-accident related damage.
• P v B (2024) – A highways claim struck out for non-compliance following the claimant's failure to obtain sufficient medical evidence. Crucially, the court was persuaded there was sufficient cause to doubt that the evidence would ever be obtained.
• AM v LM (2024) – Indemnity costs were awarded on a strike out application following the claimant's failure to serve evidence in time for trial.
• MJ v SR (2024) – A motor claim that had been issued under Part 8, and subsequently Part 7. The subsequent settlement under Part 7 claim paradoxically saved significant costs.