Henry Vanderpump

Henry has experience in a wide spectrum of clinical negligence work including cases involving midwives, surgeons, optometrists, dentists, general practitioners, nurses and care workers.

He has acted for a very wide range of clients, on both sides of the litigation process including private individuals, NHS Trusts, medical defence organisations and private medical and related institutions.

Recent cases include allegations relating to:

• • Cerebral palsy
  • Cauda Equina Syndrome
  • Spinal myelopathy
  • Failure to diagnose brain tumours
  • Failure to appropriately manage pregnancy and birth including Erb’s palsy and still birth
  • Failure to diagnose joint conditions, including in children Eg congenital hip dysplasia, SUFE
  • Delayed diagnosis of infection, Eg leading to meningitis and brain injury or osteomyelitis
  • Delayed treatment of eye conditions including genetic eye conditions, chemical burns and diabetic eye disease leading to blindness / partial sight
  • A wide variety of complications arising from laser eye surgery
  • Failure to diagnose / delay in diagnosis of cancer including to the breast, colon, kidney, oral cavity and skin
  • Failure or delay in diagnosis of various fractures
  • Failed cosmetic procedures, especially to the face and including, topical, surgical and laser treatment
  • Failure to adequately manage or treat bowel conditions such as appendicitis, polyps, Crohn’s disease
  • Failed cosmetic dental treatment
  • Delayed treatment of periodontitis and other dental conditions
  • Treatment in the prison setting
  • Failed surgical treatment resulting in issues such as chronic pain, internal bleeding and peritonitis
  • Systemic failures in administration and procedures at hospitals and clinics leading to delays
  • Failed management of mental health patients
  • Injuries sustained in care homes
  • Prescription errors including steroids leading to Cushing’s Syndrome, Addison’s Disease etc
  • Failure to obtain informed consent
  • Failure to comply with data protection legislation

Cases

LK v George Eliot Hospital NHS trust: Negligent birth claim where it is alleged delivery was not expedited following abnormal CTG and delivered using an unsafe manoeuvre. Child has been left with profound brain damage and erb’s palsy.

Smith (Dec) v Lancashire Care NHS Trust: Suicide claim of a young father of two who worked as a pharmaceutical executive. Five possible agencies are to blame for ignoring various cries for help. A 5-day inquest was highly critical of the NHS Trust.

Preston (Dec) v Dr Greiner: Claim by a young widow whose Husband died following a failure by the GP to refer him to hospital. The GP believed the symptoms related to a chest infection when they were actually related to cardiology. There was consideration of pursuing a number of Defendants but the GP was the strongest claim. Breach and causation and quantum were disputed.

Emma Rees v Swansea Bay University Health Board: Claimant suffered with hereditary condition familial adenomatous polyposis. Failure by the Health Board to follow up the Claimant in clinic. The delay results in the development of invasive cancer.

Ammie Cornwall v Homerton University Hospitals: The Claimant alleged a failure to appropriately manage labour resulting in significant loss of blood and serious damage to her kidneys. The claim related to the future prognosis of her kidneys and the opportunities for transplant.

ZH v East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust 2023 Manchester High Court: Cerebral Palsy claim involving a dispute on causation and quantum. Extensive expert evidence required. Although negotiation failed at mediation agreement was reached prior to the trial and subsequently approved by the Court.

Davenport v Lancashire Teaching Hospitals: Claimant alleged failure to manage intra-occular eye pressure which led to irreversible damage to left eye, the right eye was also under threat leading to the Claimant being registered as partially sighted.

Ross Yates v Portsmouth Hospital NHS Trust: Patient with oesophageal reflux underweight recommended gastric bypass surgery. Didn’t help the reflux and left him on weight gain powders.

David Fry (Dec) v Dr Barker: Failure of a GP to refer a patient for shortness of breath. Patient returned home and died early the next morning from massive pulmonary embolism.

AK v Dudley Group: Delay in undertaking mammogram led to the growth of a breast cancer tumour. The Defendant argued that because the Claimant had breast implants the tumour could not have been diagnosed sooner.

LG v University Hospitals Birmingham: The Claimant was advised to undergo a medical termination of an ectopic pregnancy.  The hospital failed correctly interpret the scans and realise the Claimant in fact had a heterotopic pregnancy. She inadvertently therefore terminated the intrauterine pregnancy she did not know about.

William Ingham v Salford Royal NHS Trust: Claimant alleged a knee component had been negligently fitted and as a result he required ongoing care and assistance.  Technical allegations about surgical negligence.

Susan Westgate v N Cumbria Hospitals NHS Trust: Misreported radiology led to a delayed breast cancer diagnosis and subsequent spread of the disease.

Judith Higson v Bolton Hospitals NHS FT: Hospital negligently prescribed patient opiate medication which she had a sensitivity to causing her death. The hospital argue she would have died anyway and they could not have known of the sensitivity.

Colin Ryan v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust: Delayed diagnosis of brain aneurysm and then subsequently brain surgery caused an extensive stroke in the patient.  Multiple experts required on breach, causation and quantum.

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 [2017]. A large section of society previously excluded from bereavement award should now be able to claim compensation.

Braithwaite v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust: Claimant attended cardiology appointment in 1995 where a leaking heart valve was identified. Annual review of the claimant was required but no appointment arranged.  The Hospital Trust blame the Claimant and put responsibly on a patient to chase up appointments. The Claimant is seeking to argue an adverse inference against the Hospital Trust that no appointment was arranged on the basis that the records have been lost and in any event the responsibility to arrange the appointment falls on the clinician.

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.

Khan (Disabled Patient by LF) v East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust: Claimant, who suffers from severe learning disabilities, attended hospital with an eye infection and generally feeling unwell. An inner ear infection was not suspected, subsequently the Claimant developed a brain abscess and suffered a significant deterioration in function. The Hospital Trust allege because of the communication difficulties of the Claimant it was a challenging case and therefore reasonable to misdiagnose. The Claimant argues further efforts should have been made because of the disability of the Claimant and that a higher standard applies.

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 ). The Judge accepted that the injury had been caused by diathermy but found this can have a non negligent cause.

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.

Head injuries

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.

Cases

AG (Claimant) and EF (First Defendant) and AXA Insurance UK PLC (Second Defendant) and MA (Third Defendant) and Advantage Insurance Company (Fourth Defendant) 2025: Settled a personal injury claim for £1.8M following mediation. The claimant was AG, who was the front seat passenger in her father’s car when it was involved in a major collision. She suffered severe personal injury, loss and damage. The dispute was referred to mediation, and all parties were reasonably satisfied that the outcome was fair.

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 [2017]. A large section of society previously excluded from bereavement award should now be able to claim compensation.

Henry is a specialist practitioner in industrial disease cases and is recognised as a leading junior in this field.

He is familiar with all categories and types of industrial disease related work, including but not limited to asbestos related injury and occupational cancers, acoustic injury, hand-arm vibration syndrome, dermatitis, respiratory disease, work related upper limb disorders and stress related injury.

Henry has conducted disease trials at Courts throughout England and Wales. In addition, he regularly undertakes CMC and Show Cause hearings before the Masters.

Henry is instructed in many aspects of occupational and environmental disease litigation, in particular claims involving asbestos related conditions, asthma, pneumoconiosis, cancers (including bladder cancer), carbon monoxide exposure, back injuries, beat knee, upper limb disorders, carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), hand arm vibration syndrome (HAVS), chemical exposure (COSHH claims), noise induced hearing loss (NIHL), dermatitis, silicosis, deep vein thrombosis, Legionnaire’s disease, food poisoning, norovirus, pneumonitis and radiation exposure. He has been involved in emerging areas of disease litigation for almost 20 years and is regularly instructed to provide advice on generic issues such as diagnosis, causation, etiology and apportionment.

Cases

Allen v Southwick: Achieved dismissal of a carbon monoxide poisoning claim against a landlord brought by a tenant. The Claimant relied upon common law negligence, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the Defective Premises Act 1972 and the Occupiers Liability Act 1957. There was no dispute that the Claimant had suffered carbon monoxide poisoning from a gas cooker. Henry made a ‘half time submission’ asking the Judge to dismiss the claim without hearing any evidence from the Defendant. He argued that the arguments presented by the Claimant demonstrated no case to answer and that the claim should be summarily dismissed. Whilst such applications are commonly deployed in criminal cases they are unusual in civil proceedings. The application had the benefit that the landlord was saved the pressure of facing cross examination and answering questions about events that had occurred many years before.

Hawkins v SOS for Business & Industrial Strategy: Claimant, like many former miners, developed late onset diffuse fibrosis many years after retiring from the mines. The Defendant argues this is late onset constitutional unexplained lung scarring, the Claimant argues he suffers from late onset silicosis caused by rock dust. The Claimant relies on a recent scientific paper. Other litigants with different firms wait in the wings depending on the outcome of this case. The Defendant argued that the case must be dealt with the British Coal Respiratory Disease Litigation Claims Handling Agreement. The Claimant fought successfully to keep the case in Derby CC.  The Defendant has contested many such claims with the claims handling agreement prior to recent scientific developments.

Clarke v Delta Steeplejacks Ltd: The Claimant developed mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos fibres working as a steeplejack. The Claimant took the novel approach of applying for disclosure of the Court file from another concluded Court case against the same Defendant relying on the recent case of Dring v Cape Distributions Ltd [2017]. The Defendant solicitors in the connected case refused to provide their evidence voluntarily so we applied for third party disclosure. This is an approach that could be used in other asbestos cases which often have similarities.

Blakeborough v Vinters Engineering: The matter proceeded to a contested hearing before Master Davison as to the percentage of costs payment on account for the Claimant. This is a vital issue for Claimants because mesothelioma cases are so expensive to run. Recent cases has indicated sums in excess of 50% but the Defendant was only prepared to offer 30%. Following a fully contested hearing the Master awarded 60% of costs.

Hadley v Argent Fabrications Ltd: The Claimant alleged that excessive manual handling over decades working in the Defendants steel fabrication factory had accelerated a serious back condition causing significant financial losses through early retirement. The matter proceeded to trial on breach, causation and limitation. Fundamental dishonesty was alleged.

Bolt v Ministry of Justice: The Claimant sought damages against the prison service following the development of asthma caused by passive smoking. Second hand smoke is a serious issue amongst the prison population. The prison service argued that it was not reasonable to entirely restrict the exposure of the Claimant. The Claimant argued that following a change in the law smoking in public places should be controlled including prisons.

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.

Strengths: “Henry is approachable, with excellent knowledge and fantastic client care skills.” “He is an excellent barrister, he has strong clinical negligence experience and is efficient.” Chambers UK Bar 2024

“Henry is hardworking and diligent, tactically astute, well-prepared for conference work, provides a high standard of written work when instructed to prepare papers such as pleadings and advice notes, and he is robust in dealing with court hearings.” Legal 500 2024

Strengths: “Henry has an ability to engage positively with clients, putting them at ease in what can be a distressing time for them.” “Henry is approachable, knowledgeable and has fantastic client care skills. His advice is well presented and he is a reliable and capable advocate.” Chambers UK Bar 2023

“Henry is very thorough and efficient. He has a good manner with clients and produces a helpful sheet of issues prior to conference with the client.” Legal 500 2023

Strengths: “Very well organised and efficient, with a good manner with clients. He is also a very good advocate.” “Hard-working, keen and conscientious.” Chambers UK Bar 2022

“Henry is a good advocate with a detailed forensic mind and displays practical application of the law.” Legal 500 2022 

Strengths: “An extremely efficient barrister who is always very well prepared.” “A pleasure to work with; he’s approachable, responsive and has a clear grasp of complex issues across all of his cases. He is able to communicate very well with lay clients and experts alike, and provides clear, strong, succinct advice. A fantastic advocate both inside and outside court.” Chambers UK Bar 2021 

“Henry is an extremely efficient individual who is always very well prepared. He has a very calming approach which enables him to liaise with clients in the most effective manner and gain their respect and trust.” Legal 500 2021 

“Specialises in cases concerning complex procedural arguments.” Legal 500 2020

“He has a balanced approach to cases.” Legal 500 2019

• Deputy District Judge