Spring Seminar Series

Our Spring Seminar Series is now available to book:

  • Wednesday 31st January 2024, 4pm – GP claims: Pit Falls, Traps & NICE Guidelines – Charles Austin & Dr. Simon Minkoff, GP
  • Wednesday 28th February 2024 – Mild Head Injury -Charles Feeny & Professor Gus Baker
  • Thursday 14th March 2024 – Cardiology -Ana Samuel, Charles Austin & Professor Saul Myerson

All events will take place in the city centre at Bluecoat, School Lane, Liverpool, L1 3BX.

To reserve your place please email: emma.wall@completecounsel.co.uk

Bolam v Montgomery: Where Does Medicine End & Law Begin?

Date: Friday 10th November 2023, 3pm-6pm

Location: The Municipal Hotel, Dale Street, Liverpool, L2 2DH

Your Speakers:

  • Charles Feeny
  • Charles Austin
  • Jonathan Hobson, ENT Consultant
  • Dr Simon Minkoff GP
  • Dr Craig Purshouse, Senior Lecturer in Law

Following the decision of the Supreme Court in McCulloch v Forth Valley Health Board the time seems right to consider (or reconsider) the principles underlying consent to treatment.

The extent to which the law requires clinicians to adopt an approach to management following the guidance in Montgomery remains unclear presenting practical problems.

The Seminar will include discussion of the law and its implications for clinicians.

There will be an opportunity to discuss the issues arising over drinks after the seminar.

To book a place please email emma.wall@completecounsel.co.uk
or editors@pro-vide-law.co.uk.

Material Contribution to Damage:The Elusive Third Way?

A webinar live streamed from Wadham College Oxford 4pm 26th April 2023

Professor Sandy Steel, John de Bono KC, Charles Feeny and an invited audience.

The webinar will discuss material contribution to damage as proof of causation in tort through a historical perspective, tracing its development to the present day. Issues considered will include the distinction between divisible and indivisible injury, the controversy as to whether the concept is an exception to ‘but for’ causation, and whether in the circumstances apportionment of damages would be appropriate.

There are a limited number of places available to attend in person. If you are interested in attending or wish the link for the livestream please contact emma.wall@completecounsel.co.uk

Examining the exceptions to Bolam negligence

Wednesday 22nd February 2023 at 4pm

The webinar will review the classic test of Bolam negligence and the situations where it does not apply. The seminar will also touch upon the NHS strikes and the approach the court will take to assessing breach of duty.

Charles Austin. Barrister
Date of Call: 2009

Charles regularly acts for both Claimants and Defendants in complex, high value, clinical negligence cases. Recent cases have involved:

  • Representing the Defendant at a JSM where the Claimant was pleaded in excess of £1.4million
  • Acting for the Defendant on a Fatal Accident Act claim pleaded in excess of £1million.
  • Acting on behalf of a Claimant who suffered a delayed diagnosis of slipped femoral epiphysis.
  • Acting on behalf of a Claimant suffering from severe brain damage alleged to be the result of negligently performed cardiac surgery. The Claimant will require care for life.
  • Acting on behalf of a Claimant who suffered an injury to his brachial plexus as a result of shoulder dystocia.

To reserve a place on this seminar please email Emma at emma.wall@completecounsel.co.uk

Loss of earnings and care in clinical negligence claims

The seminar will discuss contentious areas and common pitfalls. The focus will be on navigating Schedules of Loss and Counter Schedules.

Tuesday 7th June 2022, 4pm-4.45pm. Your speaker is:

Charles Austin
Barrister

Date of Call: 2009

Charles regularly acts for both Claimants and Defendants in complex, high value, clinical negligence cases. Recent cases have involved:

  • Representing the Defendant at a JSM where the Claimant was pleaded in excess of £1.4million.
  • Representing the Defendant at a JSM where the Claimant pleaded his claim at £900,000.
  • Acting for the Defendant on a Fatal Accident Act claim pleaded in excess of £1million.
  • Acting on behalf of a Claimant who suffered a delayed diagnosis of slipped femoral epiphysis.
  • Acting on behalf of a Claimant suffering from severe brain damage alleged to be the result of negligently performed cardiac surgery. The Claimant will require care for life.
  • Acting on behalf of a Claimant who suffered an injury to his brachial plexus as a result of shoulder dystocia.

The Seminar will take place virtually on Tuesday 7th June 2022, 4pm-4.45pm.

Please reserve your place by email to emma.wall@completecounsel.co.uk

Law & Epidemiological Evidence: Double, Toil & Trouble- University of Western Australia Law Review, Vol 49 Issue 1

In late February 2019, I had lunch at Wadham College, Oxford, with Professors Carl Heneghan and Sandy Steel to discuss a seminar on epidemiological evidence and the law. Almost exactly three years later, the results of this seminar at Wadham in July 2019 and a subsequent seminar at DWF London in February 2020 have been encapsulated in an article written by Per Laleng and myself, published in the University of Western Australia Law Review. Given its protracted genesis, the title of “Double, toil and trouble” can have more than one interpretation, however the pandemic at least provides some mitigation in this regard.

We were pleased and honoured to be published in the Special Causation edition of the University of Western Australia Law Review. This is an open-access publication.

As you read through the 15 articles over 475 pages, you will notice the wide range of the authors, to include leading academics, very senior judges and even some practitioners. Incidentally, if you do not have the time to read all 15 articles when you have finished ours, I would recommend Richard Wright’s contribution, which offers remarkable clarity in a very difficult area.

Prior to being invited to submit this article to the editors in Western Australia, we had sent it to two leading academic journals in this country. Both of them considered that the article had too much of a practical focus to be suitable for publication. One of the editors considered that there was insufficient “technical law”. I am not quite sure what “technical law” means, but this does not stop me being instinctively opposed to it.

Traditionally, it was considered a positive feature of the common law that its awareness of the reality of experience made it accessible to a broad range of public opinion, and at least to a significant extent acceptable. The man on the Clapham omnibus was never conclusively identified, but we can be reasonably sure he was not a technical lawyer.

Technical law appears to have developed through the intellectual parochialism of academia in the United Kingdom. Admittedly this excessive and often unfocused complexity in the law does have the attraction of inducing a degree of intellectual terror amongst certain sections of the judiciary. However it represents a damaging movement away from the traditional strengths of the common law. Reading many judgments now, it is quite apparent that their content and methodology has no resonance at all with the vast majority of the population who do not immerse themselves in technical law. Further, judgments inevitably become more extensive reflecting the breadth of argument before the Courts. Such litigation is now often conducted at eye-watering cost, affordable by major corporations and until recently oligarchs , but with the result that resort to the courts is prohibitively expensive for vast sectors of the population .

It is striking that admiring remarks are often made in leading appellate judgments in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court about Australian decisions which often appear to be much more concise and focused. It could be reasonably observed that the Australian Courts have remained much closer to the true ethos of the common law. The Editors of the Western Australian Law Journal do not appear to draw any distinction between law in practice and technical law. It is also conspicuous that notwithstanding the considerable time and effort put into producing this Special Edition, it is open-access.

Notwithstanding the toil and trouble in dealing with epidemiological evidence Pro Vide law will continue with its programme of seminars and writing on legal issues. On 9th June we are holding a seminar looking at Montgomery after seven years with clinicians, academics and practitioners entitled “Montgomery. Still too much information?” We held a seminar in 2015 on this subject. Seven years down the line is an opportune time to review the implications of the Supreme court decision for clinical practice and legal liability. If you are interested in attending this event either in person at offices of Weightmans Liverpool or virtually you can let us know.

Charles Feeny

Judicial Review: Loss of British Citizenship, Refusal To Issue A Passport, Living In Limbo, Costs And Evidence

Upcoming event! Judicial Review: Loss of British Citizenship,
Refusal To Issue A Passport, Living In Limbo, Costs And Evidence with Lorraine Mensah and Catherine Higgins.

Online Zoom Seminar
Thursday 9th September 2021, 3pm-4.30pm

Numbers are limited, please reserve your place by email
to emma.wall@completecounsel.co.uk

*New date added* Event: Irrecoverable damages in Clinical Negligence

First date sold out! New date added!

Online Zoom Seminar
Monday 17th May 2021 Thursday 6th May 2021
12.00pm – 1.00pm
To book your free spot please email claire.labio@completecounsel.co.uk

Your speaker is:

Charles Austin
Barrister

Charlie’s practice comprises of clinical negligence, serious injury and Inquest work. He appears for both Claimants and Defendants at all stages from interlocutory hearings through to trial.

Failure to Mitigate Loss – 1hr Zoom Session

Due to incredible demand we have decided the best way to ensure everybody interested gets to take part is to run two ‘open’ zoom sessions on the dates below. You will see I have split it up Claimant/Defendant wise.

  • Claimant Session: 15th December 12.00 noon
  • Defendant Session: 16th December 12.00 noon

Ana Samuel

Barrister, Assistant Coroner for Birmingham & Solihull, CEDR Mediator and AG Panel Counsel.

Ana specialises in high value clinical negligence, personal injury and inquest work (both freestanding and those linked to clinical negligence and personal injury claims).

Charles Austin

Barrister

Charlie also specialises in clinical negligence, personal injury and inquest work. Charlie’s practice comprises of clinical negligence, serious injury and commercial debt work. He appears for both Claimants and Defendants at all stages from interlocutory hearings through to trial.

Please respond to helen.southworth@completecounsel.co.uk specifying which session you wish to attend. The zoom link will then be sent to you.

Association versus Causation: Epidemiology versus the law? – DOWNLOADS

Following our Seminar in London on Thursday 6thFebruary herewith the presentations of Professor Zeegers, Professor Beard and Charles Feeny.

For further enquiries please contact Emma.Wall@completecounsel.co.uk

Downloads