William Audland QC and Isaac Hogarth of 12 King’s Bench Walk, instructed by Hugh Johnson of Stewarts successfully represented the claimant (“C”) in his claim against University College London Hospitals NHS Trust (“D”), weeks before the start of a trial on liability, achieving a settlement of £4.5 million at a video Joint Settlement Meeting (JSM).
Reflections on the Cumberlege Committee Report from a Clinical Negligence Perspective by Henry Charles and Vanessa Cashman
In this post, 12KBW pupil Samuel Cuthbert considers the ramifications of the case of Bradfield-Kay v Cope  EWHC 1352 (QB) for the tests set out in Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee  1 WLR 583 and Bolitho v City and Hackney HA  AC 232.
In this blog post, Rachit Buch writes in support of the recent decision made in the case of Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust  EWHC 1415 (QB).
In this post, Isaac Hogarth summarises the recent case of SC v University Hospital Southampton NHS FT  EWHC 1610 (QB), which involved a failure to diagnose pneumococcal meningitis.
In this article, Ronald Walker QC gives his thoughts on why he considers that the recent appeal case of Paul v The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust  EWHC 1415 was wrongly decided.
In this article, Isaac Hogarth discusses the issue of the standard of care to be applied to redeployed doctors in a Covid-19 setting. He suggests that legislation would be required to lay down any proposed modifications to the standard of care.
William Audland QC and Isaac Hogarth of 12 King’s Bench Walk, instructed by Stewart Young of Stewarts successfully represented the claimant (“C”) in his claim against Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (“D”), achieving a settlement of £4.3 million at a video mediation. The claim arose from a delay in treating raised intracranial pressure secondary to … Continue reading William Audland QC and Isaac Hogarth of 12KBW achieve online mediated settlement of catastrophic blindness claim secondary to raised intra-cranial pressure
In this blog post, 12KBW pupil Cressida Mawdesley-Thomas looks at the recent case of Harry Roberts v (1) SSAFA (2) MOD v AKV (Part 20)  EWHC 994 (QB), which involved allegations of clinical negligence arising out of the claimant's birth in a German hospital serving British military personnel and their families. The judgment relates to the issues of applicable law and limitation rather than substantive clinical negligence matters; however, it is useful for practitioners dealing with claims where the index treatment has occurred abroad.