Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence
Alice accepts high value cases of considerable complexity, and has a particular interest in brain injuries. She is regularly instructed by insurers in subtle brain injury cases, especially where the claim includes significant future losses or there are conflicting neurological and neuropsychological opinions. Many of her cases require forensic accountants and she has represented Defendants in claims where, for instance, the Claimant is an entrepreneur and alleges a causative link between an injury and the failure of a successful business.
Her extensive fraud practice makes her the ideal choice of counsel where insurers suspect exaggeration in high value clinical negligence cases. She is familiar with cases where fraud allegations crystallise at a late stage, or where an insurer’s fraud suspicions attach only to a part of the pleaded case.
She is known for her robust drafting and is able to turn around complex pleadings, counter-schedules and Part 35 questions on tight deadlines. Her proactive approach also includes advising on costs budgeting at the outset of a case.
Personal Injury & Clinical Negligence Cases
F v An NHS Trust (2024), High Court: acted for the Defendant where the Claimant alleged that clinical negligence had led to infection, necrosis and multiple operations on an ankle, leaving her severely disabled and with chronic and complex pain. Issues included the impact of psychological overlay on legal causation. The Claimant sought £1.5m, but the claim settled at Joint Settlement Meeting for £135,000.
A v An NHS Trust (2024), High Court: acted for the Defendant where the Claimant alleged that a failure to diagnose a bisected artery had caused a stroke. Breach, causation (particularly whether the stroke was thromboembolic or haemodynamic in origin) and prognosis were all in issue, and complicated by the Claimant’s unrelated Class A drug addiction. Settled at a Joint Settlement Meeting for £160,000, despite the Claimant seeking £1m.
F v An NHS Trust (2024): acted for the Defendant in a case where the Claimant suffered a serious assault at work. The Claimant was initially given a Glasgow Coma Score of 3 (consistent with death) but survived. The Defendant’s experts disputed the Claimant’s experts’ diagnosis of a Functional Neurological Disorder and alleged that the Claimant was capable of work. The Claimant valued the claim at £1m, but it was settled at a Joint Settlement Meeting for £180,000.
H v Ministry of Justice (2024): acted for the Defendant in a five day trial, where the experts disagreed over whether the Claimant had developed Complex Regional Pain Syndrome, and what specialism was best placed to provide a prognosis where there was a pain/psychiatric crossover of symptoms. The Defendant’s arguments prevailed and the Claimant was awarded less than the Defendant’s pre-trial settlement offer.
