Representing the dependents of a deceased patient in a High Court claim arising out of an 18-20 month negligent delay in diagnosing cancer, which tragically resulted in the patient’s premature death. The claim, which included significant claims for past and future loss of financial dependency, as well as grandparental childcare services, settled for £860,000 at a Joint Settlement Meeting.
Successfully represented the Claimant in a High Court claim arising out of his fall whilst descending disembarkation steps at Milan Airport. The case focused primarily on the judicial interpretation of ‘accident’ under the Montreal Convention 1999 (“the 1999 Convention”), namely whether there had been an unusual, unexpected or untoward event, external to the Claimant, causing death or injury, on board an aircraft or in the course of embarkation or disembarkation.
Successfully defending a claim brought against an ophthalmologist who was alleged to have failed to identify a posterior retinal detachment at two separate examinations, leading to sudden deterioration in vision, emergency surgery and permanent visual defects. Breach of duty, causation and quantum remained in dispute.
High Court Claim on behalf of dependents of pilot and his wife who tragically died in light aircraft crash in 2015. The primary claim is brought against the constructor, kit and engine providers and Light Aircraft Association in negligence and/or under the CPA; with a secondary claim (adopting the defences of the primary defendants) in negligence (on behalf of the dependents of the wife) against the estate of the pilot. Breach of duty, causation and quantum are in dispute. The parties are due to engage in mediation in the middle of 2019, with the matter otherwise to be listed for a 10-day trial in late 2020.
Claim on behalf of a man who suffered life-changing injury in a pedestrian road traffic accident. The claim settled for £540,000 at a Joint Settlement Meeting, including significant claims for loss of earning capacity (Ogden 7 calculation), silicon sleeves (to mask the effects of scarring), aids/equipment and domestic and DIY assistance.
High Court claim on behalf of dependents of a man tragically killed on Christmas Day 2015 in a hit and run accident. The First Defendant was later prosecuted and imprisoned. The claim settled at a Joint Settlement Meeting for £675,000, including significant sums for future loss of financial and service dependency on behalf of his widow, children and father.
Ongoing seven figure claim proceeding in the High Court on behalf of the dependents of a deceased patient following the negligent failure to diagnose cancer.
Representing the defendant in a case pleaded at £2million proceeding in the High Court. There has already been a successful (contested) application to resile from an admission of liability; and the claim now proceeds with liability, causation and credibility all in dispute.
Confidential settlements achieved in two separate High Court claims brought on behalf of dependents of two different families arising out of the Germanwings disaster. There were significant disputes as to jurisdiction, applicable law and quantification, all of which had to be resolved during the settlement negotiations. The terms of the agreements included non-disclosure provisions, which prevent publication of the nature of the settlement achieved.
£470,000 settlement achieved at Joint Settlement Meeting in which the Claimant had suffered permanent, or semi-permanent, cognitive deficit from a head injury and psychological symptoms arising out of a serious road traffic accident.
Confidential settlement achieved at mediation in a High Court claim on behalf of the dependants of a deceased patient whose Mantle Cell Lymphoma (MCL) had been diagnosed two years late after negligent analysis of a biopsy. He later developed a blastic variant of the disease that resulted in his early death. Causation and quantum remained in dispute.
Clinical negligence case that settled for a six-figure sum. The Claimant’s sigmoid colon was injured whilst undergoing a hysterectomy, which the surgeon failed to notice. Consequently, the Claimant developed infection; required three additional surgical procedures; and needed to use a colostomy bag permanently after the failure of the final operation to reverse a loop colostomy due to anastomic leakage. Breach of duty and causation remained in dispute. The claim was settled on the basis that the Claimant would not now risk any further surgery and would therefore have permanent disability.
Obstetric/gynaecological case that settled at close to seven figures. The claimant sustained a second or third degree tear to her anal sphincter as a result of the failure to perform an episiotomy or an operative delivery during the birth of the claimant’s first child. She was left with debilitating colorectal symptoms that significantly reduced her earning capacity, having had to give up a lucrative job due to her inability to work in an office.
High Court claim that settled for a high six-figure sum. The claim arose out of surgical negligence resulting in a permanent frozen shoulder that had caused significantly impaired function. Causation remained in dispute but the claimant’s medical evidence was that he was unlikely ever to return to full function.
Confidential settlements negotiated at mediation on behalf of three dependents arising out of a death during the Shoreham Air Disaster. There were disputes between family members as to the existence and/or extent of the dependency of three of these dependents; and their right to be added as individual parties to proceedings. The matter was resolved in their favour during mediation with the conflicted parties separately represented; and individual damages and costs orders negotiated.
High Court case that settled for a six-figure sum. Breach of duty and causation remained in dispute. The claim arose out of the failure of both the London Ambulance Service and the claimant’s local hospital to identify and treat pending compartment syndrome, resulting in permanent disability.
High Court claim that settled for a six-figure sum. The (retired) claimant suffered a damaged popliteal artery during knee surgery that resulted in permanently reduced mobility and independence. Breach of duty and causation were both in dispute. The case settled on the basis that the claimant would, absent negligent surgery, have maintained his independence for the foreseeable future without the need for permanent assistance.
£365,000 settlement negotiated at JSM on behalf of claimants whose mother tragically died in a plane crash. There were significant dependency claims for loss of child care services to her grandchildren that she had been expected to provide.
£382,500 settlement negotiated at JSM on behalf of claimant who suffered from life-changing disability due to the development of Chronic Pain Syndrome and Somatic Symptom Disorder. There was fundamental disagreement between the pain and psychiatric experts as to causation in light of the claimant’s pre-existing medical history; and as to prognosis (whether and to what extent she would recover). The claim settled on the basis that there would only be modest recovery in future.
£300,000 quantum settlement negotiated at JSM on behalf of claimant who suffered horrific leg injuries that prevented him from returning to his old work capacity. The settlement figure was reduced to reflect an agreed apportionment of liability.
£320,000 settlement negotiated at JSM on behalf of a claimant who lost her job as a teacher following the onset of symptoms from asymptomatic pars fractures after a serious motorcycle accident.
£320,000 quantum settlement negotiated at JSM on behalf of claimant who suffered disabling ankle injuries and was likely to require full fusion operations on both ankles in the future. The final settlement was discounted to reflect an agreed apportionment of liability.
2nd August 2019
Lionel Stride, instructed by Rebecca Smith at Irwin Mitchell, has successfully represented the Claimant in a High Court claim arising out of his fall whilst descending disembarkation steps at Milan Airport. Margaret Obi, sitting in her capacity as a Deputy High Court Judge, was satisfied that this caused ‘an unusual or unexpected event external to him’, constituting an ‘accident’ within the meaning of Article 17 of the Montreal Convention 1999 (“the 1999 Convention”).
27th June 2019
Lionel Stride, instructed by Louise Jackson of Browne Jacobson LLP, successfully represented the Second Defendant in a claim arising out of alleged ophthalmological negligence, which was heard over six days in the Norwich (and Cambridge) County Court. The Court was persuaded that the Second Defendant had acted competently when undertaking an ophthalmic examination at his own private clinic (prior to transfer to an NHS hospital); and that the Claimant had failed to establish that her subsequent retinal detachment could in any event have been diagnosed at either of his two assessments. HHJ Walden-Smith, sitting in her capacity as a High Court Judge, dismissed the claim in a reserved judgment handed down on 27 June 2019.
4th June 2019
Please see link below for the 4th edition of the the TGC Costs Newsletter.
View External Link
TGC Costs Newsletter
10th December 2018
Please see link below to the latest update from the TGC Costs Team.
View External Link
TGC Costs Newsletter
17th May 2018
Please see link below to the latest TGC Costs Newsletter.
View External Link
4th July 2017
Welcome to the very first edition of TGC’s Costs Newsletter! Costs has been a huge part of our practice at TGC for as long as it has been recognised as a discrete area of law. Whilst the team has naturally changed and evolved over that time, it has retained phenomenal strength and depth from its leadership right through to its most junior members. We pride ourselves on being leaders in the field and being able to offer a client service level second to none. We remain extremely grateful for our Directory recognition, and through 2017 we’ve reinvigorated our energy levels as a team being ever ready to serve!
View External Link
10th November 2016
Admission made in MoJ Portal and claim settled – was this binding on insurer’s driver who later wanted to bring her own proceedings – could she apply to withdraw the admission – consideration of conflicting cases of Ullah v John and Malak v Nasim. Held: admission was binding and the admission could not be withdrawn given settlement; case struck out. Paul McGrath appeared for D1. Lionel Stride appeared for D2
Thank you for choosing to instruct me in your case. I will need to collect and hold your personal information in order to represent you. I will take all possible steps to protect your personal information. I am determined to do nothing that would infringe your rights or undermine your trust. This Privacy Notice describes the information I collect about you, how it is used and shared, and your rights regarding it.
I am registered with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) as a Data Controller for the personal data that I hold and process as a barrister. My registered address is Temple Garden Chambers, 1 Harcourt Buildings, EC4Y 9DA and my registration number is Z9600636.
The vast majority of the information that I hold about you is provided to or gathered by us in the course of your case and/or proceedings. Your solicitor and/or I will tell you why we need the information and how we will use it.
Our Lawful Basis for processing your information
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requires all organisations that process personal data to have a Lawful Basis for doing so. The Lawful Bases identified in the GDPR are:
- Consent of the data subject
- Performance of a contract with the data subject or to take steps to enter into a contract
- Compliance with a legal obligation
- To protect the vital interests of a data subject or another person
- Performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller.
- The legitimate interests of ourselves, or a third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests, rights or freedoms of the data subject.
Examples of legitimate interests include:
- Where the data subject is a client or in the service of the controller;
- Transmission within a group of undertakings for internal administrative purposes;
- Processing necessary to ensure network and information security, including preventing unauthorised access;
- Processing for direct marketing purposes, or to prevent fraud; and
- Reporting possible criminal acts or threats to public security.
Our Lawful Basis is your consent and/or the performance of a contract to act on your behalf and our Legitimate Interest is the fact that you are my client.
I use your information to:
- Provide legal advice and representation;
- Assist in training pupils and mini-pupils;
- Investigate and address your concerns;
- Communicate with you about news, updates and events;
- Investigate or address legal proceedings relating to your use of my services, or as otherwise allowed by applicable law.
I do not use automated decision-making in the processing of your personal data.
I collect and process both personal data and special categories of personal data as defined in the GDPR. This includes:
- Phone number;
- Payment or bank details;
- Date of birth;
- Location details;
- Device IP address;
- Financial information;
- Medical Records; and,
- Criminal Records.
I may share your personal data with:
- Instructing solicitors;
- Pupil or mini pupil, under my training;
- Opposing Counsel, for the purposes of resolving the case;
- My Chambers management and staff who provide administrative services;
- My regulator or legal advisors in the event of a dispute or other legal matter;
- Law enforcement officials, government authorities, or other third parties to meet our legal obligations; and,
- Any other party where I ask you and you consent to the sharing.
Transfers to third countries and international organisations
I do not transfer any personal data to third countries or international organisations.
I retain your personal data while you remain a client unless you ask me to delete it. My Retention and Disposal Policy (copy available on request) details how long I hold data for and how I dispose of it when it no longer needs to be held. I will delete or anonymise your information at your request unless:
- There is an unresolved issue, such as claim or dispute;
- I am legally required to; or
- There are overriding legitimate business interests, including but not limited to fraud prevention and protecting customers’ safety and security.
The General Data Protection Regulation gives you specific rights around your personal data. For example, you have to be informed about the information I hold and what I use it for, you can ask for a copy of the personal information I hold about you, you can ask us to correct any inaccuracies with the personal data I hold, you can ask us to stop sending you direct mail, or emails, or in some circumstances ask us to stop processing your details. Finally, if I do something irregular or improper with your personal data you can seek compensation for any distress you are caused or loss you have incurred. You can find out more information from the ICO’s website http://ico.org.uk/for_the_public/personal_information and this is the organisation that you can complain to if you are unhappy with how I dealt with you.
This is a Notice of recommended practice. The contents of this Notice are in no way intended to have a contractual basis.
Accessing and Correcting Your Information
You may request access to, correction of, or a copy of your information by contacting me at LionelStride@tgchambers.com
You may opt out of receiving emails and other messages from my Chambers by following the instructions in those messages.
- Validate users;
- Remember user preferences and settings;
- Determine frequency of accessing our content;
- Measure the effectiveness of advertising campaigns; and;
- Analyse site visits and trends.
I will occasionally update my Privacy Notice and will publish the updated Notice on my website profile to ensure that you have access to it.