AMA, Author at Parklane Plowden

Clinical Negligence and Personal Injury Law with Lunch | 26 March 2026

Parklane Plowden Chambers is pleased to invite you to our next Law with Lunch session. This edition will offer a focused update on Clinical Negligence and Personal Injury delivered by Stuart Jamieson  Join us for an informative and engaging session designed for professionals who want to stay current with key developments and practical insights in these areas of law.  DATE: Thursday 26 March 2026  TIME: 12:30 PM to 1:30 PM  Location: Microsoft Teams  If you would like to book a place, email <a href="mailto:events@parklaneplowden.co.uk">events@parklaneplowden.co.uk</a>

Parklane Plowden is pleased to host our first Iftar this Ramadan

Our aim is to welcome all members of the community through inclusivity, food and friendly conversation. We look forward to seeing you soon!'

International Women’s Day

Its International Women's day on Sunday and our Head of Chambers, Elizabeth Hodgson, has written in Counsel Magazine about the pressures of supporting initiatives such as pupillage recruitment, committee roles and CSR outreach. At Parklane Plowden both the head and deputy heads - Sarah Harrison and Sara Anning - are women and these additional responsibilities are recognised as a vital contribution to its ongoing success and future legacy.  <a href="https://lnprodstorage.z35.web.core.windows.net/Counsel/2026/March/1oAcC8DP3sunJlcbLb8FHDQnCN9R1mAd/html/index.html?utm_campaign=BRFCounselMag3March&utm_medium=email&utm_source=DotDigital&dm_i=4CGD,1TLC4,6DXQRH,8KGG1,1,0,0,0">Here is a link to the article</a>

Setting aside findings of alienating behaviour and the role of unregistered experts following Re Y (Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach) [2026] EWFC 38

In Re Y the President of the Family Division Sir Andrew McFarlane provides clear guidance on the modern approach to be adopted when faced with allegations of alienating behaviour. The President also sets out the appropriate route for parties to take when seeking to set aside findings of parental alienation.  Background  In December 2014, the mother and father separated and subsequently divorced. In 2018, an order was sought by the father for the two children to move and live with him. Allegations of domestic abuse were made by both parents against one another.   In April 2019, the children’s guardian made an application for Ms Melanie Gill to undertake a “specialist family assessment” as a single joint expert. However, as Sir Andrew McFarlane Pmade clear, “Ms Gill does not have a clinical or therapeutic practice in which she sees patients. Whilst her CV lists membership of a range of organisations, Ms Gill is neither a chartered psychologist, nor registered with the Health and Care Professions Council [‘HCPC’].” ([9]). The report of Ms Gill was received in September 2019 at the conclusion of which she found ‘extensive evidence’ that the children were suffering from active alienation by their mother, and as a result the children should be removed from their ‘traumatising environment and relationship with their mother’. The Guardian concurred with the recommendation of Ms Gill.  At a hearing in October 2019, the court heard oral evidence from Ms Gill and no other witnesses. The judge determined at the conclusion of her evidence that the children had suffered from alienating behaviour of their mother towards their father. No other evidence from any other witnesses was heard. At the end of October, the mother launched an application for permission to appeal  In December 2019, with the above application having not been determined, an order was made for the two children to move and live with their father. X, the eldest, was 12, and Y was 9 years old. The children had no contact with their mother between the end of 2019 until 2025.  In early 2025, X had moved to live with her mother for a couple of months before returning to the father. In November 2025, Y, who was then 15 years old, left the father’s home, moving to live with his mother. However, Y was removed into police protection, spending a period of time in foster care until an order was made for him to stay with a friend of the mother.  The Part 18 Application  In April 2025, the mother applied under the Family Procedure Rules 2010 Part 18 to reopen and set aside the findings made in light of new material, namely the decision in Re C (‘Parental Alienation’; Instruction of Expert) [2023] EWHC 345, and the guidance on alienating behaviours issued by the Family Justice Council in December 2024.  The Court began by setting out the required three-stage approach in determining such applications set out in Re CTD (A Child) (Rehearing) [2020] EWCA Civ 1316. The present application concerned only the first stage, namely ‘(1) The court asks first whether the applicant has shown that there are solid grounds for believing that the previous findings require revisiting’.  The Court then conducted an evaluation of recent guidance and authorities on (1) instruction of expert psychologists and (2) the modern approach to parental alienation.  Instruction of experts  The President provided helpful and clear guidance on the instruction of expert psychological witnesses in light of the significant concerns surrounding the use of unregistered experts, setting out that “[i]n future, permission should not be given under CFA 2014, s.13 for the instruction of an expert ‘‘psychologist’ who is neither registered by a relevant statutory body, nor chartered by the BPS. It would be good practice, before a potential expert is appointed, for them to be asked to state whether they hold an HCPC protected title, and if so what that is, before any order is made appointing them as an expert. The ‘registered or chartered’ requirement should only be departed from where there are clear reasons for doing so (for example no registered or chartered expert is reasonably available); where that is so, those reasons should be set out in a short judgment” ([73]).  The President warned against the stark impact if findings are made, such that it “may lead to a radical dislocation of family relationships that is sustained over a period of years” ([74]). It is integral therefore that a “degree of rigour” is applied both by professionals and the court when considering the instruction of an expert (ibid). This applies both in public law and private law proceedings.  Alienating behaviours  It is important to note from the outset that “[t]he factual matrix around allegations of alienating behaviour is a matter for the court alone” and “[a]ny findings of fact once made will then, but only then, be important material for an expert or CAFCASS officer tasked with advising the court on issues of welfare” ([45]).  The Court clarified the modern approach to the question of alienating behaviours at paragraph [75] which, by way of summary, is as follows:  i) the reason for the court’s investigation should be ‘a child’s unexplained reluctance, resistance or refusal to spend time with a parent’, rather than the allegations that one or other parent may be making against the other;  ii) Where a child is reluctant, resisting or refusing to engage in a relationship with a parent or carer (element one), then the court’s focus will move to element two to consider whether that reluctance, resistance or refusal is a consequence of the action of the estranged parent, where it is alleged that that parent has been abusive to the child and/or caring parent;  iii) If it is found that the estranged parent has not behaved in a way in which the child’s reaction can be seen as an ‘appropriate justified reaction’, or, for other reasons, it is found that the child’s reaction is not caused by any factor such as a child’s ordinary alignment, affinity or attachment to the parent with care, then the court willmove on to element three;  iv) At the stage of element three the court will focus on whether the caring parent has engaged in alienating behaviours that have directly or indirectly impacted on the child, leading to the child’s reluctance, resistance or refusal to engage with the estranged parent.  v) Where domestic abuse is alleged, and there is a cross-allegation of alienating behaviour, if a fact-finding process is required, the focus of the fact-finding must be to   (1) determine the issues of domestic abuse and   (2) to consider whether the child’s refusal to engage with the estranged parent is an ‘appropriate justified reaction’ to any abusive behaviour, or that what has occurred is the result of protective behaviour or a traumatic response on the part of the victim parent.  vi) Courts should not determine the issue of alienating behaviour on its own without determining the underlying facts and, where it is alleged, the primary issue of domestic abuse;  vii) Courts should not appoint an expert to advise in cases where a child is reluctant, resistant or refusing to engage with a parent unless and until there is clarity and, if necessary, facts that have been found, as to the parents’ past behaviour towards each other and the child and, if domestic abuse is proved, whether the child’s reaction to that behaviour is an appropriate one.  Determination of the Part 18 Application  The mother was successful in her application given that “the judge in the present case fell into a basic error by not establishing the factual matrix first, in particular whether there had been domestic abuse … before considering any expert evaluation” ([82]). The judge, without making his own factual determination, had accepted Ms Gill’s analysis. The following faults in the approach to case management and in making the findings of fact were identified:  i) Where there were serious cross-allegations of domestic abuse, the question of whether to instruct an expert psychologist or file a final s.7 report ought to have been postponed until after any fact-finding process  ii) An unregistered psychologist “should not have been instructed to provide a psychological assessment at any stage of Family Court proceedings relating to children” ([83])  iii) Given that Ms Gill had no clinical practice, it was concerning that the proposal to instruct Ms Gill had been endorsed by the court  iv) A fact-finding should have been conducted to contextualise the allegations put forward by the mother    v) The court should not have directed the filing of final reports by the expert and Guardian before a fact-finding hearing  vi) There was a “fundamental error” in hearing Ms Gill’s evidence first, and not hearing any other evidence before accepting Ms Gill’s analysis and conclusions ([83])  It was made clear however that the substance of the grounds which the mother was seeking to rely on were not necessarily ‘new’. Whilst there had been further guidance both by the Courts and the Family Justice Council in 2023 and 2024, “[m]uch of what is contained in the ‘new’ material was known of, or was part of developing good practice over the preceding period” ([80]). What had changed was that such practice had been set out in a more concise and clear format in the published guidance.  Appeal or Part 18?  The Court also addressed the additional matter of whether an application for permission to appeal would be more appropriate in these circumstances. It was determined that the more appropriate route is in fact an application under Part 18 given that: (1) there is no need to apply for an extension of time; (2) an appeal is “something of a blunt instrument” as the appeal can only be allowed or dismissed; and (3) if the appeal fails a second appeal “faces a higher permission threshold” ([76]).  Practical Takeaways  • Where there are unresolved allegations or cross-allegations of domestic abuse, it is for the court to determine the facts – expert opinion is not a substitute for judicial determination  • Unregulated experts should not be instructed except where clear and substantive reasons are provided for such an instruction   • When dealing with allegations of parental alienation, utilise the structured approach set out by Sir Andrew McFarlane P and refer to the Family Justice Council Guidance both on the <a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Psychologists-as-Expert-Witness-in-family-courts-in-England-and-Wales-standards-competencies-and-expectations-.pdf">instruction of psychologists as expert witnesses</a> in the family courts and on <a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Family-Justice-Council-Guidance-on-responding-to-allegations-of-alienating-behaviour-2024-1-1.pdf">allegations of parental alienation</a>  • Part 18 is the appropriate route to take when seeking to set aside findings of parental alienation – this is so even when such findings may have been made prior to the FJC Guidance, as was the case here

REPLAY: Public Law Grandstand Seminar | 15th January 2026

<figure class="wp-block-embed is-type-video is-provider-youtube wp-block-embed-youtube wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio"><div class="wp-block-embed__wrapper"> https://youtu.be/L9QAOu85hCs?si=YovGoJ-b7FyzqcaU </div></figure>

Arya Vindlacheruvu looks at lost years damages for child claimants

An overview of CCC (by her mother and Litigation Friend MMM) (Appellant) v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Respondent) [2026] UKSC 5.  The Supreme Court confirmed that child claimants could be awarded lost years damages in personal injury claims.   Accordingly, the appeal succeeded and the case was remitted to the trial judge to assess damages for the Claimant’s lost years.  “Lost years damages”  “Lost years” refers to the time between a claimant’s reduced life expectancy, as a consequence of their injury, and their life expectancy pre-injury.   The damages which may be awarded to compensate for those lost years is the sum of the claimant’s loss of earnings and loss of pension, minus their living expenses, over the course of those years.   Background  Liability was admitted. The Defendant failed to prevent the Claimant from suffering a hypoxic brain injury at birth, which resulted in her suffering from cerebral palsy.   The parties agreed that the Claimant’s injuries would reduce her life expectancy to age 29.   The parties also agreed that the Judge was barred from making an award for lost years damages because it was bound by the Court of Appeal decision in Croke v Wiseman [1982] 1 WLR 71.   The Judge declined to assess damages for lost years but granted a certificate for a leapfrog appeal to the Supreme Court to review the correctness of Croke v Wiseman.   The basis of the appeal to the Supreme Court  Whether the bar on lost years claims for children (as per Croke v Wiseman) was inconsistent with the earlier House of Lords’ authorities of Pickett v British Rail Engineering Ltd [1980] AC 136 and Gammell v Wilson [1982] AC 27.  Judgment  In CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, the majority found that Croke v Wiseman was inconsistent with Pickett and Gammell.   Previous authorities   Pickett and Gammell recognised the evidential difficulties of proving and assessing lost years damages for child claimants.   Pickett rejected the proposition that lost years damages were confined to claimants with dependants and Gammell attached no significance to the presence of dependants for the purpose of awarding lost years damages.  In conflict with those decisions, the court in Croke v Wiseman barred child claimants from being awarded lost years damages because of the absence of dependants who would benefit from the damages.   Assessing loss  In the present case, the Supreme Court acknowledged the difficulty in assessing lost years damages for a child claimant compared to an adult claimant. However, it was held that the difficult nature of the assessment would not act as a bar to recovery.   Loss of earnings  When calculating a child claimant’s loss of earnings, the majority in the Supreme Court found that judges would be assisted by evidence in relation to a child claimant’s particular situation, including; the child’s educational achievements, the occupation and attitude of the claimant’s parents and siblings, and evidence concerning the average earnings of a suitably tailored category of individuals.   Reliance on such evidence, which can be unrelated to the characteristics of the individual claimant, was a key criticism of Lady Rose’s dissenting judgment.   Living expenses  When calculating the deduction for living expenses for adult claimants, a conventional percentage is generally applied to the net earnings on a rough and ready basis. The majority held that a similar approach could be applied to child claimants[62].  Where the multiplier approach is used to calculate lost years damages, Lord Burrows anticipated that a high deduction from lost earnings for living expenses would be applied in child claimant cases to reflect the high degree of uncertainty involved [141-142].   Calculating lost years damages  The multiplier approach is the usual method for calculating lost years damages for adult claimants. Lord Burrows anticipated that this approach would usually be adopted in child claimant cases [150].   “To calculate damages for the lost years, it is usual to apply a multiplier derived from actuarial tables known as the Ogden Tables, reflecting the number of lost years (ie the difference between the claimant’s actual life expectancy and the life expectancy which the claimant would have enjoyed but for the injury), but discounted so as to allow for the fact that a lump sum is being given now instead of periodical payments over those years (and also to allow for any contingencies not already taken into account), to a multiplicand reflecting the net annual loss during that period (ie the loss of annual income net of tax, and after deduction of the claimant’s probable living expenses).” [7(4)]  Comment   This decision appears to reflect the purpose of compensation: to restore a claimant to their pre-injury position.   Unsurprisingly, there will be less direct evidence of the earning capabilities of a child claimant. Conversely, the older the claimant, the more established they will be in their career, and the more likely they will be able to adduce evidence to assist in quantifying their lost years damages.   The difficulty in assessing lost years damages for child claimants is mitigated by evidence of the claimant’s family’s circumstances and attitudes. This will provide courts with a helpful starting point.  Attempts to distinguish between the damages recoverable by adult and child claimants would arguably be artificial and risk undercompensating a child claimant.   Key Takeaways  Child claimants can claim for lost years damages.   The absence of dependants is not fatal to such a claim.  Evidence of a child claimant’s family’s earnings potential and attitude will inform the court’s assessment of such damages, especially where there is no direct evidence as to the claimant’s individual earning potential.  The Judgment is available <a href="https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2023_0111_judgment_bcc0527041.pdf">here</a>.

When The Scan Is Normal And The School Reports Are Positive: Rethinking Paediatric Brain Injury Evidence

In paediatric brain injury litigation, the cases that appear straightforward at first glance are often the ones that demand the greatest caution.  These themes were explored in a recent webinar delivered in collaboration with <a href="https://www.inneg.co.uk/?utm_source=parklane-plowden&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=parklane-plowden-article&utm_id=webinar-parklane-plowden-article">INNEG,</a> featuring Consultant Clinical Paediatric Neuropsychologist Dr Nigel Colbert and barrister Hylton Armstrong, examining the evidential challenges that arise when early presentation appears reassuring.  A child presents following a traumatic event. Acute imaging does not demonstrate significant structural abnormality. There is no dramatic neurological collapse. By the time proceedings are underway, primary school reports describe steady progress. Teachers are encouraging. The child is described as “coping.”  In adult litigation, such a profile might significantly narrow the issues. In children, it should prompt closer examination.  Development Is Not a Static Baseline  One of the central difficulties in paediatric cases is that there is rarely a settled pre-injury baseline. In adults, the task is commonly retrospective: what has been lost? In children, the question is prospective: what would have developed?  The legal exercise is therefore not simply to measure deficit, but to analyse altered trajectory. That shift carries implications for quantum, causation and the timing of expert evidence. A nine-year-old who appears broadly functional today may not yet have encountered the developmental demands that would expose vulnerability.  The absence of obvious deficit at an early stage cannot safely be treated as determinative.  The Masking Effect of Structure  Primary education is highly structured. Planning is scaffolded. Movement is supervised. Expectations around independent organisation are comparatively modest. Within that environment, subtle inefficiencies can be concealed.  A child may follow peers rather than process instructions independently. They may complete tasks more slowly but remain within acceptable classroom tolerance. Written reports may reflect effort and attitude rather than underlying executive performance.  Difficulties often become clearer when structure falls away.  Secondary school introduces complexity: multiple teachers, timetables, independent navigation, competing academic pressures. Executive functioning becomes not advantageous but essential. Where maturation of frontal systems has been disrupted, the strain of these demands can reveal difficulties that were previously masked.  From an evidential perspective, the timing of assessment therefore becomes more than procedural - it becomes substantive.  The Limits of Structural Imaging  Conventional imaging retains obvious importance in acute management. However, structurally normal scans do not answer functional questions. Network integrity, processing efficiency and executive regulation are not directly visualised on routine CT or MRI.  An absence of visible lesion does not equate to intact cognitive performance. Nor does the presence of a focal abnormality automatically dictate outcome. Contemporary neuropsychological understanding emphasises complexity and interaction rather than simplistic localisation.  For advocates, overreliance on radiological reassurance risks oversimplification.  Causation in a Developing System  Paediatric brains are dynamic. They mature across stages. Early disruption may have consequences that only manifest when specific networks are called upon.  Complicating matters further, many children present with pre-existing traits or vulnerabilities. Overlapping features between acquired injury and conditions such as attentional or autistic spectrum profiles make binary reasoning unattractive. The question is rarely whether injury is the sole cause, but how it has interacted with existing characteristics.  Arguments framed in absolutes tend not to survive careful scrutiny. Contribution, amplification and reduced compensatory capacity are often more accurate descriptors than exclusivity.  Expert Evidence: Beyond the Numbers  Psychometric testing remains central to forensic neuropsychology, but figures divorced from context are incomplete. How the child approached tasks, regulated frustration, deployed strategy or fatigued over time may be as probative as any composite score.  Equally, the completeness of contextual enquiry - school liaison, developmental history, family functioning - frequently determines how persuasive an opinion will be at trial. A report constructed solely from clinic-based testing, without integration of environmental reality, is inherently more vulnerable.  Judges are not assisted by raw data. They are assisted by coherent explanation.  A Case for Evidential Patience  There is an understandable pressure within litigation to crystallise prognosis. Yet in paediatric claims, time itself may be evidential. Executive capacity, emotional regulation and independence cannot be fully evaluated before they are meaningfully tested.  Where proceedings conclude before those developmental milestones are reached, there is a real risk that valuation will rest on partial information.  This is not an argument for delay in every case. It is an argument for alignment between developmental stage and evidential certainty.  Keeping Development Central  Ultimately, paediatric brain injury litigation is concerned with futures, not merely past events. The legal task is to construct a reliable picture of how an injury has altered a life still unfolding.  That requires caution where early recovery appears reassuring. It requires restraint where experts are tempted toward reductionism. And it requires recognition that development is neither linear nor uniform.  In this area of practice, the most persuasive cases are often those that acknowledge complexity rather than resist it.  The full webinar discussion can be accessed <a href="https://www.inneg.co.uk/resource-centre/webinars/neuropsychological-evidence-in-paediatric-brain-injury-dr-nigel-colbert-hylton-armstrong?utm_source=parklane-plowden&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=parklane-plowden-article&utm_id=webinar-parklane-plowden-article">here ></a>

Leila Benyounes and Georgia Banks acting on the Nottingham Inquiry

The Public Inquiry into the tragic Nottingham attacks moves into a crucial new phase as formal hearings begin today, Monday, 23rd February.  Parklane Plowden Chambers is pleased to share an update following yesterday’s announcement. We can confirm that Georgia Banks has now been instructed as the second junior on this matter, joining the team already in place, which includes Leila Benyounes.  Georgia’s appointment further strengthens the team and reflects the continued confidence placed in Chambers to provide coordinated, high‑quality representation. With counsel now confirmed, Chambers looks forward to supporting our instructing solicitors with a well‑resourced and experienced team  This marks an important moment for the Bereaved families, Survivors, and wider community who have waited a long time for answers.  The Inquiry will examine the circumstances surrounding the events of 13 June 2023, in which three people were killed and three others seriously injured.  It will scrutinise the actions of public bodies, the adequacy of systems in place, and the opportunities—missed or otherwise—to prevent such a devastating outcome.  Leila Benyounes, of Parklane Plowden Chambers, continues to act on behalf of the Surviving Victims, who have life changing injuries. She is instructed by Greg Almond, Partner at Rothera Bray LLP, who has been steadfast in his support of those most deeply affected.  This next stage of the Inquiry represents a significant opportunity for transparency, accountability, and meaningful learning. The Survivors' determination to understand what went wrong—and how future tragedies can be prevented—remains at the heart of these proceedings.  As the hearing commences, our thoughts remain with all the victims, their families, and all those whose lives were irrevocably changed. Their courage in seeking answers continues to drive this process forward.

26th February 2026 | Family Finance & Private Children: A Private Client Wine‑Tasting Evening

Join Parklane Plowden Chambers’ Family Finance and Private Children Team for a relaxed and insightful Private Client Wine‑Tasting Evening in the heart of Harrogate.  Date: Thursday, 26 February 2026 Venue: Williams & Victoria, 6 Cold Bath Road, Harrogate, HG2 0NA  This exclusive event brings together professionals working across family finance and private law children matters for an evening of informal networking, conversation, and expertly guided wine tasting.  Programme  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>6:00pm – Arrival</li>  <li>7:00pm – Wine Tasting</li>  <li>8:30pm – Close</li> </ul>  Canapes will be served throughout the evening.  We look forward to welcoming you for an enjoyable and informative event.  For queries, please contact: <a href="mailto:events@parklaneplowden.co.uk">events@parklaneplowden.co.uk</a>

Avaia Williams Secures Findings of Fabricated Rape and Sexual Coercion Allegations

Avaia Williams successfully represented the respondent father in the recent fact-finding hearing in <a href="https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2026/22">M v F (Fact Finding Hearing) [2026] EWFC 22 (B)</a>, a contested Children Act case concerning allegations of the utmost severity.  The hearing, which took place over four days, involved allegations of rape, sexual coercion, physical abuse toward both the mother and child, and controlling and coercive behaviour. After a detailed review of the evidence and hearing from the father, mother, and her four witness, the court found that, not only were none of the mother’s allegations made out, but that the allegations of rape, sexual coercion and physical abuse were actively fabricated and false.   In rejecting the evidence relied upon by the mother, the judge drew attention to significant issues with the production and reliability of key witness statements, drawn out in cross examination, including a witness statement produced by AI and another substantively edited by the solicitor without the witness fully understanding it.   In addition, a key witness for the mother was deemed by the Court to be entirely unreliable, with the Judge placing noweight on her following the witness being faced with incontrovertible evidence that she had lied in her statement and in court, her reasoning boiling down to “supporting the girls club”.  As a result of the findings, a non-molestation order, prohibited steps order, and specific issues order which had plagued the father for almost a year were discharged with immediate effect and interim contact (which had earlier been secured against Cafcass recommendation) was drastically increased with all conditions removed; the court finding that there was no safeguarding basis to prevent this.  Avaia, instructed by MSD Solicitors, has acted for the father at every hearing since the proceedings were issued, including an interim appeal and an application for a stay of interim contact by the mother, both of which were successfully challenged.

Cookie	Duration	Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional	11 months	The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy	11 months	The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.

Your Shortlist (0)

Clinical Negligence and Personal Injury Law with Lunch | 26 March 2026

Parklane Plowden is pleased to host our first Iftar this Ramadan

International Women’s Day

Setting aside findings of alienating behaviour and the role of unregistered experts following Re Y (Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach) [2026] EWFC 38

REPLAY: Public Law Grandstand Seminar | 15th January 2026

Arya Vindlacheruvu looks at lost years damages for child claimants

When The Scan Is Normal And The School Reports Are Positive: Rethinking Paediatric Brain Injury Evidence

Leila Benyounes and Georgia Banks acting on the Nottingham Inquiry

26th February 2026 | Family Finance & Private Children: A Private Client Wine‑Tasting Evening

Avaia Williams Secures Findings of Fabricated Rape and Sexual Coercion Allegations

Amelia Fragola-HuntLeila BenyounesGeorgia Banks

Amelia Fragola-Hunt

Leila Benyounes

Georgia Banks

Recognition for Outstanding Work on the Nottingham Enquiry

PLP ANNOUNCES DEPARTURE OF NON-EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN

Dillon CarsonAnna DattaJessica Ashcroft

Dillon Carson

Anna Datta

Jessica Ashcroft

Parklane Plowden Inquests Team Summer Article Roundup

Anna Datta

Anna Datta

Does the word ‘poor’ denote negligence?

Your Shortlist (0)

Our Expertise

Clinical Negligence and Personal Injury Law with Lunch | 26 March 2026

Parklane Plowden is pleased to host our first Iftar this Ramadan

International Women&#8217;s Day

Setting aside findings of alienating behaviour and the role of unregistered experts following Re Y (Experts and Alienating Behaviour: The Modern Approach) [2026] EWFC 38

REPLAY: Public Law Grandstand Seminar | 15th January 2026

Arya Vindlacheruvu looks at lost years damages for child claimants

When The Scan Is Normal And The School Reports Are Positive: Rethinking Paediatric Brain Injury Evidence

Leila Benyounes and Georgia Banks acting on the Nottingham Inquiry

26th February 2026 | Family Finance &amp; Private Children: A Private Client Wine‑Tasting Evening

Avaia Williams Secures Findings of Fabricated Rape and Sexual Coercion Allegations

Latest News

Amelia Fragola-HuntLeila BenyounesGeorgia Banks

Amelia Fragola-Hunt

Leila Benyounes

Georgia Banks

Recognition for Outstanding Work on the Nottingham Enquiry

PLP ANNOUNCES DEPARTURE OF NON-EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN

Dillon CarsonAnna DattaJessica Ashcroft

Dillon Carson

Anna Datta

Jessica Ashcroft

Parklane Plowden Inquests Team Summer Article Roundup

Anna Datta

Anna Datta

Does the word ‘poor’ denote negligence?

International Women’s Day

26th February 2026 | Family Finance & Private Children: A Private Client Wine‑Tasting Evening