Henry accepts instructions in almost all areas of personal injury work. He is presently instructed in accidents at work, asbestos-related litigation, accidents abroad and various public liability claims. He has particular expertise in fatal accident claims. Henry has a busy road traffic practice. He is involved in accidents that have led to fatality, amputation, or other serious injury, or where there are issues relating to the liability of the MIB or road traffic insurer. He has successfully concluded multiple head injury claims, those for amputees and many other maximum severity cases. Henry has also received instructions on behalf of high earning claimants. Henry does not accept instructions in claims with a value below £100,000, unless there is a particularly interesting point of law or procedure. He would expect to act without a leader in the vast majority of sub-catastrophic cases.
Henry has expertise in the complete range of brain injuries arising from clinical negligence including:
- Cerebral palsy and other effects from hypoxic ischaemia in neonates
- Substandard care in relation to inflammatory diseases of the brain such as meningitis, sepsis and encephalitis
- Delayed diagnosis of traumatic injuries leading to haemorrhage and cerebral contusions
- Neurosurgical issues such as management of tumours or aneurysms
- Neuroradiology and interventional radiology
- Stroke medicine and dementia care
- Claims involving major disorders of consciousness such as persistent vegetative state and locked-in syndrome, and brain injuries giving rise to psychiatric issues such as psychosis or dissociative disorder
He can draw on expertise in other complex issues surrounding brain injury claims such as Court of Protection applications including deputyship and trust as well as health and welfare matters, and issues under the Mental Health Act 1983.
The focus of his claimant PI practice is to provide advice and representation to claimants reporting subjective symptoms from injuries that exceed any objective identifiable organic lesion.
Such claimants typically present with symptoms of an undiagnosed TBI, audio vestibular damage, chronic pain or functional neurological disorder.
Often such claimants encounter disbelief in a litigation setting, accused of deliberate or sub-conscious exaggeration of their symptoms. Unpicking the symptoms and marshalling the medicine underpinning them is Henry’s forte.
Mohammed Shah v Khan (1) & MIB 2023: Road traffic accident resulting in polytrauma and a traumatic brain injury to a young man. This resulted in care needs and a significant loss of earnings. The case requires a range of experts commenting on the relationship of cognitive difficulties to the index accident. Henry was led on this case by a silk.
Shazia Khousar v Nazir 2023 Manchester High Court: Road traffic accident resulting in polytrauma and a traumatic brain injury. A wide range of experts are involved including neuropsychologists, neuropsychiatrists, neurology and neuroradiology. There is a dispute as to whether the Claimant lacks capacity. The Defendant has obtained surveillance footage in an attempt to undermine the extent of the disability claimed. Henry was led on this case by a silk.
Cook v Eurowines Ltd 2023 Central London CC: Successfully had a claim for CRPS dismissed entirely despite an admission of liability being made. The Court used section 57 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 to dismiss the claim accepting the that the Claimant had been fundamentally dishonest in the presentation of his claim. Oral medical evidence required at trial and surveillance footage used.
Richmond-Dixon v Wardle 2023 Nottingham CC: The claimant sustained a frontal skull fracture and developed subarachnoid haemorrhage causing moderate to severe traumatic brain injury. Allegations of contributory negligence are being pursued against the Claimant. The Claimant is a young man just embarking on a career as a chef. There is added complexity to the case concerning whether rheumatoid arthritis has been caused or exacerbated by the accident. Henry was led on this case by a silk.
McDaid v AXA 2023: The Claimant suffered catastrophic injuries to his right ankle. He had a promising career starting three property businesses with his business partner taken away from him. The Claimant used forensic accountancy evidence to construct his probable future career.
AA v Ageas Insurance: Catastrophic head injuries to a 2-year-old in a car crash resulting in severe cerebral palsy. A PPO will be required to support the care regime in the future. An accommodation claim is being brought together with Court of Protection.
Bhatt v Royal Mail 2022 Central London CC: Traumatic brain injury affecting a young woman with a promising career. Claimant was part way through a university course at the time of the injury and therefore assessing the loss of earning capacity was complex. The matter settled at a JSM. Henry was led on this case by a silk.
McCarthy v Ali 2022 Manchester High Court: Traumatic brain injury to a young electrician who had accepted a well paid job in the middle east. The extent of the injury led to a loss of career and significant care and treatment needs.
Spencer v Fitton 2022 Manchester CC: Traumatic brain injury suffered by a retired pensioner. Arguments were advanced by the Defendant that significant care would have been required in any event. It was necessary to establish what extra care was required as a result of the injuries. A Swift v Carpenter accommodation claim was made.
Beale v Multifab: The Court found it was appropriate to award damages but choose to dismiss the claim for fundamental dishonesty in light of the evidence to the Claimant had given. The Judge dismissed the case wholesale using section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Court Act 2015 which has not previously been done in a industrial disease claim.
Jason Dooley v The Sherwood Press: Claim discontinued at trial after cross examining the Claimant over limitation.
Trella v Bright Blue Foods Ltd: After two days of evidence the Judge dismissed the claim on the basis of no breach of duty and lack of causation. This was a repetitive strain injury bought by a polish worker.
Brown v Oceaneering: Complex five-day repetitive strain injury claim brought by a rope access worker on an oil rig. Medical experts and ergonomic experts had to be called to give evidence. The Defendant disputed that the manual handling regulations applied.
Hale v Costco: Complex repetitive strain injury claim involving many lay witnesses and medical experts who required cross examination over a four-day trial.
Lee Campbell v Airbus: One of numerous cases against Airbus for carpal tunnel syndrome. Carpal tunnel syndrome claim where vibrating tools and the forceful nature of the work are relied upon as a cause. Employer says the claim is out of time, the cause of the injury was constitutional and that there was no breach of duty.
Roberts v Home Office: Large loss stress at work claim. Claimant had years of successful work at the Border Force and was then driven out by management. Claimant argued that he would struggle to return to work again and would face continuing losses.
Phillips v Aquatech Plumbing: One of many ongoing carbon monoxide cases. A family allege they were poisoned from carbon monoxide fumes leaking from the boiler. Long term neurological systems are alleged to have been caused. Engineering evidence is required to establish the levels of exposure.
Parsons v Euro Packaging: Another complex stress at work claim. Claimant alleges a sexual assault at work and thereafter bullying by colleagues which she was not adequately protected from. This leads to stress at work claim.
Bramley v WH Smith & Co: Henry has a particular interest in asbestos claims and has many cases in the high court list being dealt with by the specialist Masters. This case involves diffuse pleural thickening claim from an electrician exposed to asbestos over many years.
Nadan v Read Garage Limited: The Claimant was 54 years old and a partner at a garage in Lancashire. During work he alleged he struck his neck on a car jack causing a traumatic stroke and serious disability. The Defendant alleged that the stroke was caused by obesity and clogged arteries. Contested evidence was required from neurologists and neuroradiologists. The Claimant was unable to return to work.
Ali & Goulding v Greater Manchester Police: The Claimants attended a routine call when they were attacked by a man welding a knife. Intelligence was available from the Home Office and Berkshire Police Force which indicated the attacker thought all police officers were terrorists and had a history of assaulting police officers and threatening to kill them. The Defendants argued at trial that they had an immunity because the attack was carried out by a third party and was not foreseeable.
Rana (Deceased) v Dr Caldwell: Deceased Claimant attended Defendant GP with allegedly unstable angina in April 2013. The GP sent the Deceased home with medication. The Deceased subsequently suffered a cardiac arrest in April and brain damage dying in July. The Defendant GP made an admission in February 2017 but sought to resile from the admission on the basis of new evidence in the form of supportive expert evidence arguing the angina was not in fact unstable. The Defendant also argues the Deceased would have died anyway even if admitted to hospital. HHJ Bird refused permission to resile from the admission and listed the matter for a trial on causation.
Madison Kennedy v Alder Hey Children’s Hospital: Failure to undertake childhood hearing test led to misdiagnosis of profound deafness and the need to learn sign language. Missed opportunity to undertake cochlear implant surgery. Experimental research was necessary to investigate whether it would have made a difference for Madison. The Health Trust made an offer of settlement years before the research was complete. Madison is now attempting to accept the offer out of time. The question for the Court is whether in the unusual circumstances of this case it would be appropriate to make Madison liable for the costs of the Health Trust potentially consuming her damages via qualified one way cost shifting.
Deaville (Deceased) v East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust: Successfully claiming bereavement damages pursuant to the Fatal Accidents Act from the Hospital Trust for a common law wife. Technically only legal spouses meet the requisite definition but the Fatal Accidents Act has been found to be in breach of the Human Rights Act in the recent case of Jakki Smith v Lancashire Teaching Hospitals . A large section of society previously excluded from bereavement award should now be able to claim compensation.