Henry Vanderpump

Henry Vanderpump - Barrister at St John's Buildings
View LinkedIn profile

Email: clerk@stjohnsbuildings.co.uk

Phone: 0161 214 1500

Year of call: 2007

Book BarristerDownload Details

Henry specialises in Personal Injury and undertakes work in three distinct areas – disease, clinical negligence and catastrophic injury claims. He acts on behalf of Claimants and Defendants in equal measure and has also been involved in providing strategic advice to a large national firm of solicitors in relation to noise induced hearing loss claims. Henry has also worked as a Consultant in house for a large national firm of solicitors specialising in asbestos litigation.

Expertise

  • Personal Injury

    For the last 10 years Henry has focused his practice on personal injury claims. He regularly deals with claims for sums in excess of £500,000 and has acted in claims in excess of £1 million. Henry has a particular interest in occupational illness litigation, clinical negligence and serious injury claims.

    Book BarristerBack to top
  • Disease

    Henry has a particular interest in asbestos and mesothelioma claims. He has represented a number of former coal miners who are only now developing conditions relating to their rock and coal dust exposure in the mines decades before. He has been working in house with Irwin Mitchell Asbestos Team in Leeds for part of the year, gaining the opportunity to work on ground-breaking claims including with Ian Toft and his team.

    Asbestos related diseases

    Henry has expertise in asbestos litigation having worked in house for a national firm of solicitors in their asbestos team. He regularly appears at show cause hearings acting in mesothelioma claims before the Masters in the Royal Courts of Justice. He has recent experience of advising on Keytruda treatment which is set to revolutionise the marketplace for mesothelioma claims and allows claimants in appropriate cases to claim PPOs.

    Noise induced hearing loss

    Henry has expertise in noise induced hearing loss claims and has acted in a number of the leading recent cases on the issue of de minimis over the last few years. He acted in and was successful in both the cases of Briggs and Childs (see below). Henry’s expertise in deafness claims was recognised when he was asked to chair the Manchester Law Society conference on deafness claims in October 2016 where Professor Lutman was a guest speaker on his updated CLB Guidelines. Over the last few years Henry has gained a particular following from Defendant solicitors in this area after achieving much success at limitation trials.

    COSH

    Henry deals with a significant number of COSH asthma and dermatitis claims every year. Henry has an in depth knowledge of the appropriate experts to instruct and the points that tend to succeed at trial. Over these years Henry has gained an in-depth understanding of the medical, engineering and factual evidence required to support these claims. He has a particular interest in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 and the likely effect it will have on occupational illness litigation and he has hosted a number of seminars on this topic.

    HAVS/Vibration Induced CTS

    Henry has an in-depth understanding of vibration induced injury claims. He has recently been to trial on the issue of apportionment in haves claims and when no Holtby reduction should be made.

    CASES

    Beckett v Hunslet Holdings Limited Master Davison, 4 November 2017 RCT

    Pursuing a claim for pleural thickening in the Masters list. After contested submissions the Master has listed the matter for a full show cause hearing.

    Blakeborough Deceased v Vinters Engineering Plc Master Davison, 4 October 2017 RCJ

    The Deceased was exposed to asbestos whilst working in a munitions factory in the 1970s. The Claimant developed mesothelioma. The Claimant successfully secured judgment at this show cause hearing by presenting a primae facie case which could not be realistically challenged.

    Zipfel Deceased v TH Holroyd Limited District Judge Pema, 6 June 2017 Leeds High Court

    The Claimant developed mesothelioma. Appearing in this contested first appointment for the Claimant and persuading the Judge that a full show cause hearing was appropriate despite the Defendant Counsel presenting arguments as to the strength of the evidence. At a full show cause hearing judgment was entered.

    Hawkins v Secretary of State For Business Energy and Industrial Strategy Ongoing Claim

    The Claimant is seeking to bring a claim for silicosis from historic coal/rock dust exposure outside of the British Coal Respiratory Disease Litigation Scheme. The Defendant argues that this case must be dealt with within the scheme in the High Court and there is no discretion. The Claimant argues that silicosis does not fall within the wording of the Scheme. The case could have significance for other miners who have developed silicosis as a result of dust exposure but can currently only bring their claims within the confines of the Scheme.

    Jenkins v Arriva Trains Wales Recorder Thom QC, 11 October 2017 Cardiff County Court

    Successfully arguing that apportionment of damages was appropriate in a HAVS claim where only the final Defendant was sued in a chain of potential Defendants.  The Claimant decided only to sue Arriva, the last employer to expose their client to vibration relying on a number of recent authorities. If Claimants were able to take this approach in other claims it would remove the need for multiple Defendant claims and reductions for uninsured losses. Defendants on the other hand would face larger claims for damages. Considering when it was appropriate to apply Brookes v South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive [2005] EWCA 452.

    Magill v Panel Systems (DB) Limited [2017] EWHC 1517

    Mr Magill had developed mesothelioma. He died from a cardiac arrest but the Claimant sought to argue that he would have been able to undergo an artery bypass graft if it had not been for his mesothelioma. There were also disputes as to the method to calculate life expectancy. The Claimant argued that bespoke evidence from medical experts should be accepted whereas the Defendant sought to rely on statistical averages. Henry advised the Claimant.

    Singleton v Smith & Partners Ltd Ongoing Claim

    Mr Singleton suffers from lung scarring but there are multiple causes. He was a miner for years experiencing exposure to coal and rock dust but his claim against the Coal Board is out of time. He also worked for the Defendant with asbestos for a short period. The Claimant is seeking to recover full damages for the scarring on his lungs on the basis that it is scientifically impossible to apportion the role of rock/coal dust from asbestos fibres. If the Claimant is successful it could benefit many miners whose respiratory claims are often reduced for competing causes of symptoms.

    Book BarristerBack to top
  • Clinical Negligence

    Much of Henry’s clinical negligence work is based in the North West region and Lancashire in particular. He mainly works for Claimants although in the past two years he has joined the panel for Welsh Health Authorities and MPS and NHS Resolution, so he has a growing Defendant practice. Henry has a particular interest in claims involving Obstetrics and Gynaecology and has gained expertise in that area following the case of Harkin (below).

    Cases

    Quine v Warrington & Halton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, 24 October 2017 DJ Coffey Liverpool County Court

    The Claimant alleged that the Defendant failed to diagnose an Achilles tendon rupture causing chronic symptoms. The case hinged on radiology evidence. The Claimant sought to rely on radiology evidence served late. The Defendant successfully stopped the Claimant relying on any radiology evidence. This case was important because the Court emphasised that the general purpose of radiology evidence in clinical negligence claims was to solely comment on the scans and x-rays not to look at all the circumstances surrounding the scans such as medical examinations to support a particular interpretation of the radiology evidence.

    SB (Executor of the Estate of KH) v East Lancashire Hospitals Trust, 5 September 2017 DJ Clarke Burnley County Court

    The Defendant’s Hospital failed to inform the Deceased of concerning blood test results before she left accident and emergency having been kept waiting for many hours. The Deceased went home and two days later died of a perforated gastric ulcer.  Henry advised the Estate and Dependents. The Deceased left an infant son who required additional care from his Father and was also on benefits. The case was of interest because we established a dependency claim based on benefit payments and also additional childcare when the law was previously unclear as to whether a claim could be advanced in these circumstances.

    Harkin v Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Trial, 23 – 25 November 2016 HHJ Beech Lancaster County Court

    The case was a clinical negligence claim where it was alleged diathermy had been inappropriately used during surgery causing necrotic damage to a ureter and subsequent infection. The case was advanced on the basis that a diathermy injury can only be caused by negligence, essentially res ipsa loquitur. Such a finding by the Judge would have been significant for other claims involved use of diathermy and for doctors working in Obstetrics and Gynaecology (International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1471-0528.14710/pdf).  The Judge accepted that the injury had been caused by diathermy but found this can have a non negligent cause.

    Book BarristerBack to top
  • Catastrophic Injury 

    Henry is experienced in dealing with cases involving the most serious injuries and greatest losses. He believes a relaxed and caring bedside manner is crucial in cases involving serious injury. He frequently travels to see Claimants at home or close to their home if travel is an issue and a telephone conference would be inappropriate.

    When acting for Defendants Henry prides himself on providing realistic advice from an early stage. He is regularly instructed to attend Joint Settlement Meetings and regularly appears in CCMCs across the country. Henry is comfortable with cost budgets in excess of £500,000 and budgeting hearings involving in excess of five parties.

    McMurray v Padiham Cotton Holding Company Limited (Liverpool High Court)

    Appearing as Junior on a serious brain injury case listed for two weeks in the High Court where judgment was eventually entered for £2 million.

    Weston v Ardmore Construction Limited (Northampton County Court)

    Successfully argued for significant insurance payments to be ignored following the Gaca v Pirelli General Plc case in achieving a compensation award of £375,000.

    Rook v Ministry of Defence (Newcastle County Court)

    Henry is acting for an injured army veteran who has been discharged from the army on account of his injuries. The claim raises an interesting point in that the MOD deny that the Claimant was discharged from the army on account of his accident related injuries but seek to offset an AFCS payment.

    Ironmonger v Persimmon Homes Essex (Preston County Court)

    Acting for a construction site manager in a claim for serious head injuries following the collapse of a steel brace.

    Davies v Nicholson (Birkenhead County Court)

    Appearing for the Defendant in a claim involving alleged exacerbation of pre-existing brain injury and personality disorder. Using neuro-psychological and neurological evidence to challenge the lay witness evidence.

    Paul Barker v Karl Dalely (Manchester County Court)

    Acted as Junior Counsel for the Defendant in a claim pleaded at in excess of £1.5 million. Liability was admitted for a road traffic accident but the Claimant suffered significant injuries including compartment syndrome and required a spinal cord stimulator. Each party had experts in six different disciplines.

    Rudd v Ministry of Defence (Manchester County Court)

    Henry acted on behalf of an injured army veteran discharged from the army on account of his injuries and achieved a significant settlement following JSM applying a full Ogden 7 calculation.

    Book BarristerBack to top
  • Court of Protection

    Henry has a developing Court of Protection practice in all fields of Court of Protection work, including property and affairs, health and welfare, serious medical treatment, and associated human rights matters. Henry regularly advises and appears on behalf of Local Authorities, Professional Deputies, and individuals and their families.

    With his background in personal injury and clinical negligence, Henry has a particular interest in claims advanced and contested under the Human Rights Act for damages against health trusts and Local Authorities within COP proceedings or in parallel to COP proceedings. Henry has an in-depth understanding of the Civil Procedure Rules which assists in understanding these claims.

    With a background in civil claims, Henry is also well placed to advise on the increasing trend for costs arguments in COP cases made on behalf of respondents and applicants. Henry also has experience of large personal injury trusts and financial deputyship.

    Due to the nature of the issues involved, Henry is happy to advise on an urgent basis and to undertake advisory and drafting work to short timescales.

    Book BarristerBack to top