Daniel Kinnear

Daniel is frequently instructed to settle statements of case, advise on merits, quantum and evidence (both in writing and in conference), and draft agendas for expert meetings. He regularly appears in the County Court for CCMCs, interlocutory applications and PTRs. He is often instructed to negotiate settlements at various forms of ADR (including counsel to counsel discussions, joint settlement meetings and judicial-led mediations). He has also represented Claimants in multi-track trials.

Daniel’s experience extends beyond clinical and dental negligence to general (and sometimes obscure) disputes pertaining to the Civil Procedure Rules as well as costs litigation (having represented Claimants in detailed assessments).

Daniel delivers bespoke training and seminars on all issues surrounding clinical negligence to law firms and cosmetic clinics.

Cases

M v M [2024]: Daniel was instructed by the Claimant to advise on and plead a claim involving the negligent performance of mastopexy and breast augmentation leading to the development of a body dysmorphic disorder and the requirement for repeat surgery which settled for £45,000 plus costs.

H v Health Board [2024]: Daniel was instructed by the Claimant to advise on and plead a claim involving a negligent still-birth which settled for £40,000 plus costs.

S v M [2024]: Daniel was instructed by the Claimant to advise on and plead a claim involving the alleged mis-selling of skin rejuvenation treatment which settled for £13,000.

LB v NHS Trust [2023]: Daniel represented the Claimant in a matter where the hospital failed to extract teeth in their entirety during a full mouth clearance. As a consequence, the Claimant subsequently developed a serious infection and required an operation under general anaesthetic. She was left with various facial nerve injuries and a post traumatic settlement disorder. The claim settled after the joint meeting of experts for £100,000 plus costs.

B v NHS Trust [2023]: Daniel represented the Claimant in a matter where the Defendant left a ‘long piece of gauze swab’ in situ during elective surgery for reduction of the inferior turbinates and adenoidectomy in January 2019. As well as suffering short term physical sequalae, the Claimant developed a post-traumatic stress disorder which was treated medically and by therapy. The claim settled for £50,000 plus costs after the issue and service of Court Proceedings.

S v D [2023]: Daniel represented the Claimant in a matter where the Defendant restored the Claimant’s dentition with implant-retained bridgework at a total cost of £17,995. The majority of the said treatment was poorly executed and required replacement. Notwithstanding evidential difficulty created by missing records and arguments of contributory negligence, settlement was achieved at £78,500 plus costs.

B v C [2023]: Daniel represented the Claimant in a matter where the Defendant mismanaged the Claimant’s periodontal condition leading to tooth loss and a psychiatric injury. This case was robustly defended in causation with the Defendant seeking to attribute the deterioration in the Claimant’s gum health to poor oral hygiene, diabetes, smoking and a high BMI. Settlement was not agreed until after the PTR in the weeks leading up to trial. The matter concluded for £45,000 plus costs.

Bailey v Farahzad – County Court (Stoke-on-Trent) [July 2022]: Daniel represented the Claimant in a three-day trial. The Defendant mismanaged the Claimant’s periodontal health over a period of almost a decade. Extent of likely future tooth loss and the Claimant’s psychological injury were in issue. Damages of circa £63,000 were awarded (with the Defendant’s Part 36 offer being almost doubled and the Claimant’s Part 36 offer being beaten as well).

Sparks v Ng – County Court (Manchester) [December 2021]: Daniel represented the Claimant in a three-day trial. The Defendant mismanaged the Claimant’s periodontal health over a period of almost two decades. Causation and contributory negligence were in issue. Damages of circa £67,300 were awarded (with the Defendant’s Part 36 offer being beaten by 210%).

JO v TMF: [October 2021]: Daniel represented the Claimant in a joint settlement meeting. This claim related to periodontal mismanagement and negotiations took place after the joint meeting of the expert witnesses against the backdrop of an impending trial date. Settlement was agreed in the sum of £35,000 plus costs.

DA v HS and GC (Manchester) [September 2021]: Daniel represented the Claimant in a two-day hearing. The Defendants applied for strike out or summary judgment to be entered in their favour alleging that the Claimant’s claim was bound to fail in circumstances where it was brought (i) without reference to highly relevant dental records and (ii) purportedly after the expiry of the limitation period. The applications were dismissed with substantial costs being awarded in the Claimant’s favour.

VT v PL and JH [September 2021]: Daniel represented the Claimant in counsel-to-counsel settlement negotiations. This claim related to periodontal mismanagement as well as the inappropriate provision of orthodontic therapy and involved complex issues of causation and quantum with the expert witnesses on both sides taking divergent views. Settlement was agreed in the sum of £70,000 plus costs.

Z v S (Southampton) [2020]: Daniel represented the Claimant in a judicial-led mediation. This claim related to the circumstances surrounding the extraction of a wisdom tooth following which the Claimant was left with a permanent inferior dental nerve injury and an adjustment disorder. Settlement was agreed in the sum of £38,000 plus costs.