Mairi Day
Partner
Mairi qualified as a solicitor in 2001 after earning her LLB (Hons) from the University of Aberdeen and completing her Diploma in Legal Practice. She joined Digby Brown in 2005 after having worked in a small chamber practice and a larger law firm in Edinburgh and is based in our Edinburgh office.
Mairi is a Partner in our Network Department. She has been a Partner since 2019. Mairi specialises in claims arising from road traffic accidents, accidents at work and occupiers and public liability claims. She is a specialist in complex cases involving pain disorders. She is also experienced in dealing with fatal claims and has represented many families who have been bereaved following the death of a loved one. Mairi has represented clients in both the Sheriff Court, the National Personal Injury Court and the Court of Session.
Mairi is a Notary Public and a Senior Litigator accredited member of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL).
As a member of the Network Department, Mairi has links with several firms in and around Scotland, particularly in the Borders area. She is trusted by local firms to provide advice and guidance and to help clients navigate personal injury claims and has assisted several such clients throughout the years. She has provided training to local faculties and law firms as well as internally within the firm and enjoys attending networking events.
Mairi was the principal solicitor in the case of Hamish Stanger and Others v Erland Flaws which was brought before a civil jury, concerning the awards of damages to relatives of the late Anne Stanger following a fatal road collision in Orkney. The case has been cited in subsequent publications as a milestone in helping to recognise the disparity between judicial and jury awards of damages for loss of society to relatives and forcing judicial awards to align more with jury awards.
The Stanger case was one of the first cases since Hamilton v Ferguson (Spean Bridge) Ltd in which the presiding judge at a civil jury provided the jury with significant guidance as to the appropriate levels of non-patrimonial awards such as loss of society. The case helped shift the ranges of such awards upwards for future judicial guidance and helped to close the gap between the two types of awards.
