Victoria Steele, Author at Parklane Plowden

Jim Hester writes about Silicosis claims for LexisNexis

Parklane Plowden’s Jim Hester provides a Personal Injury and Clinical Negligence analysis on Silicosis claims for LexisNexis.  Jim covers the critical aspects of these claims in his article:  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>What is Silicosis and how does it develop over time?</li>  <li>Liability in Silica dust claims and employer duties</li>  <li>Statutory limitation periods for Silicosis claims</li>  <li>Challenges in proving causation and how courts assess evidence</li>  <li>Types of damages awarded and proving loss</li> </ul>  If you’re interested in the full article, follow the link <a href="https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/news/silicosis-claims">here</a>.

Welcome back Emily Ross

Parklane Plowden are delighted to welcome back family barrister Emily Ross.  Emily returns to Chambers on the 01 September 2025 after a period of maternity leave and will be accepting instructions in family law children matters.  To instruct Emily, please contact the family clerking team on <a href="mailto:familyclerks@parklaneplowden.co.uk" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">familyclerks@parklaneplowden.co.uk</a> or call 0330 390 4303.  You can find out more about Emily and her practice <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/emily-ross/">here</a>.

10th September 2025 | Inquest Law with Lunch

The next webinar in our ‘Law with Lunch’ series of bitesize, lunchtime talks covering legal issues of the moment is not to be missed.  Wednesday 10th September 2025 | 12:30 – 13:30  Join two members of Parklane Plowden's Inquest team, Abigail Telford and Sophie Watson as they discuss 'Unlawful Killing and Neglect', a subject they recently explored at our Inquest Grandstand in July.  Please register via <a href="mailto:events@parklaneplowden.co.uk" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">events@parklaneplowden.co.uk</a>.

Court Affirms Gender Reassignment Surgery as a Joint Financial Responsibility – JY V KF {2025} EWFC 195

In a first instance decision by HHJ Farquhar sitting in the Brighton Family Court, the court considered as a specific issue whether the costs of the respondent’s gender reassignment surgery should be met from the matrimonial pot.  The parties were ‘high net worth’ individuals, with assets totalling over £3,000.000. Their legal costs totalled over £1,000.000.  When the parties met in 1998, the respondent was a biological male. The applicant stated that in 2022 the respondent had informed her, that she was intending to ‘transition’ to a woman. The respondent stated that the applicant was aware she was a trans-person before they married in 2002.  The Court described the issue as ‘having generated significant emotion from both of the parties,’ the applicant’s position was that the marriage had broken down as a result of the respondent’s decision to transition to a woman and undergo the surgery, and it could not be right therefore that she should have to pay half the costs of the surgery from the matrimonial funds. It was argued that if the respondent wanted the surgery, that was her choice, but it must be paid for out of her own funds.  The respondent argued that the costs of the gender reassignment surgery should be treated like any other medical cost which would ordinarily be met from the joint assets, that it would be like saying someone who had cancer should not have the surgery and accordingly the cost should be met from joint funds. The court noted that the precise costs of the surgery had not been produced, only an estimate in the region of £160,000.00, but it was satisfied this was a reasonable figure.  In considering the criteria under section 25 (2) (b) of the MCA 1973, the court found that it was difficult to see how the costs of the gender realignment surgery cannot come under the heading of ‘needs.’ It was not suggested that the costs should be considered as conduct, nor could it be. It could not come under the heading of ‘wanton or reckless’ expenditure that could warrant an add back consideration. This was clearly not akin to cosmetic surgery and could not be considered in such a light.  The court referred to the consideration of what amounts to ‘needs’ within the Family Justice Council’s ‘Guidance on Financial Needs on Divorce’ document, which was referred to by Peel J in WC v HC {2022} WFC 22 and reiterated that ‘needs is a very broad concept with no single definition in family law.’  HHJ Farquhar was satisfied that the respondent’s need was not matched by a similar need for the applicant and as such it was reasonable for the money spent meeting that need to come out of joint resources.  It remains to be seen whether this decision will be appealed. This was a case with significant assets, and it might be questioned whether the same approach would have been taken in a case with more limited resources.

Case Report: R (On the application of Jada Bailey) v HM Senior Coroner for East London [2025] EWHC 1637 (Admin)

Jaden was an individual who had been killed on 8 January 2019. An inquest to his death was formally opened on 18 January 2019. The inquest process was then overtaken by the criminal proceedings which took place, and the inquest was adjourned on 2 April 2019. Ayoub Majdouline was convicted of Jaden’s murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 21 years on 18 December 2019.  On 24 December 2019, the Coroner issued a certificate that the inquest was not to be resumed. The Claimant applied to the Coroner to resume the inquest in June 2023 and a decision not to resume the inquest was issued in a document dated 18 March 2024. Jaden’s mother, Jada Bailey (the “Claimant”), sought to judicially review that decision on three points:  <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>The decision not to resume the inquest gives rise to a breach of the procedural obligation under ECHR Article 2;</li>  <li>The Coroner’s conclusion not to resume the inquest rested on two errors of law as to the likely utility of the resumed inquest; and</li>  <li>The decision was contrary to a duty to investigate arising at common law (this was abandoned in submissions as there is no separate common law source of either power or obligation for a Coroner to investigate – they are statutory under the Criminal Justice Act 2009). This was then adapted that the Coroner had failed to have regard to relevant considerations, namely: <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li>the public interest in holding an inquest;</li>  <li>the purpose pursued by sections 5(1) and (2) of the 2009 Act;</li>  <li>that an inquest can serve to allay any public concern arising from a death; and</li>  <li>the possibility of making a regulation 28 report.</li> </ul> </li> </ul>  The decision not to resume the inquest gives rise to a breach of the procedural obligation under ECHR Article 2  The Coroner had accepted the Claimant’s basic premise that there was an obligation to investigate under ECHR Article 2. In the usual course of inquests, the holding of an inquest discharges the investigative duty as required under the provisions of the 2009 Act. The Coroner in this case had considered that the investigative duty had been discharged already by the time the Claimant had sought to resume the inquest, as a Serious Case Review had been commissioned by the Safeguarding Children’s Board for Waltham Forest, published in May 2020.  The Claimant’s submitted that there were concerns regarding the scope and content of the SCR report; there were criticisms regarding the form of the investigation; the author of the SCR report lacked independence; the Claimant did not have sufficient opportunity to be involved in the SCR exercise; and it did not meet the requirement for public scrutiny. Further, following the SCR report, complaints raised about the conduct of the Metropolitan Police had not been properly addressed in an investigation by the Independent Office for Police Conduct.  As to the SCR report, Swift J commented:  It is readily apparent from the SCR report that it is a thorough and thoughtful consideration of all relevant matters. To my mind the SCR report is a highly impressive piece of work that should provide valuable assistance to all public authorities concerned. By identifying very clearly things they did and things they failed to do the SCR report ought both to promote accountability for what happened and to provide valuable guidance to those public authorities as regard their future conduct. Whenever considering a document such as this SCR report it will always be possible to point to further questions that could have been considered or further detail that could have been looked for. But that is not the test of whether the investigation that has been undertaken meets the requirement arising under article 2. In the circumstances of this case the investigation needed to consider the actions of the public authorities in Nottinghamshire and in London that had responsibilities that, if performed, would have served to safeguard C against the risk of falling victim to criminal exploitation. The SCR report, as written, evidences an effective investigation of the actions and omissions of those public authorities.  …  The purpose of an article 2 investigation is to consider what did happen; to establish a picture of past events. Often it will be readily apparent from findings on what did happen, what other steps should have been taken. That is so in the present case since it is clear from the SCR report that certain steps that were not taken should have been taken. But that is a by-product of the investigation.  Swift J considered that there was no principle reason why the SCR report, and the way in which the investigation had been conducted, was incapable of satisfying the article 2 duty to investigate. Swift J found that the author of the SCR report was independent and there was no suggestion that the investigation was not independent either. There was no requirement for an inquest to compel witnesses to give evidence or for certain documents to be provided, and so the argument that the SCR process did not do this had to fall away.  As to the lack of public scrutiny, Swift J held:  The requirement arising from article 2 for sufficient public scrutiny of either the investigation or its results or both, exists to ensure accountability, to promote public confidence in adherence to the substantive obligations arising under article 2, and to prevent any appearance of collusion or tolerance of unlawful acts. What is appropriate to meet these objectives is not fixed. There is no requirement that an investigation must be conducted through public hearings. I do not consider that the investigation that Mr Drew undertook was impaired by the absence of such hearings. Considered in the round, the SCR report identifies and then scrutinises the acts and omissions of the relevant public authorities.  Moreover, as to the lack of the Claimant’s involvement:  Given the factual circumstances… “I do not consider any of this shows that the Claimant was insufficiently involved in the investigation or lacked an effective opportunity to participate in and comment on the formulation of the SCR report. Rather, opportunities to participate were available from the outset of the investigation in early 2019 and, given the assistance available to the Claimant from the experienced and able solicitors who advised her, the opportunities to participate were real and substantial.”  The Coroner’s conclusion not to resume the inquest rested on two errors of law as to the likely utility of the resumed inquest  The Claimant submitted that the Coroner had failed to consider a narrative conclusion in their decision and their comments in relation to regulation 28 reports indicated a misdirection on the law.  As to the first point, Swift J remarked:  The suggested distinction between "short-form" and "narrative" conclusions that is the premise of this submission is a distinction without a difference. There is no material difference between a conclusion expressed using any of the terms listed in Note (i) and one that is in the "brief narrative" form anticipated by Note (ii). Each is intended to be descriptive: to describe the outcome of the inquest. For example, a conclusion of "unlawful killing" could be given either by simply using those words or through a narrative to the same effect.  The Coroner had referred to regulation 28 reports as ‘toothless’, and whilst Swift J considered that this was a rather colourful description; the Coroner had not misdirected himself on the law in relation to regulation 28 reports; and therefore this ground also failed.  Failure to have regard to relevant considerations  Swift J found that the Coroner did have regard to the possibility of making a regulation 28 report and that reading the decision in the round it had specifically considered and took the relevant considerations into account. This ground therefore failed.  Takeaways and practice points  The most interesting part of this decision is that the duty of the State to investigate does not have to be via the traditional inquest route and can be discharged via different avenues – there is no automatic right to an inquest. If other investigations have taken place in/around an incident one must take a holistic view of everything and consider whether it meets the article 2 duty; if so, there may not be a need for an inquest.  Bharat Jangra is part of the Inquests Team at Parklane Plowden. Bharat’s profile can be accessed <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/bharat-jangra/">here</a>.

Avaia Williams – Denying Pupil Barrister Entry

Pupillage is the Bar’s essential 'apprenticeship', yet pupil barristers are increasingly being turned away from the very hearings they need to watch in order to qualify. Avaia has recently written about this problem for The Barrister Magazine and discussed how sudden objections, from solicitors, litigants-in-person, opposing counsel or even the court, can derail training, impact confidence and leave lasting knowledge gaps, especially in practice areas where hearings are scarce.  Drawing on survey responses from current pupils, it becomes clear that refusals occur across jurisdictions exposing a profession-wide problem.  The piece highlights a regulatory vacuum: neither the Bar Standards Board, the Bar Council nor the senior judiciary has issued clear guidance on pupil attendance at hearings - a simple rule that recognises pupils as part of a party’s legal team unless a compelling reason for exclusion is given would save court time, reassure clients and protect the integrity of pupillage.  Avaia's article can be read in full <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/app/uploads/2025/07/The-Barrister-Denying-Pupil-Barristers-Entry.pdf">here</a>.

Leila Benyounes – £1.5 million Settlement in Delay in Diagnosis of Breast Cancer

Leila Benyounes represented the Claimant in a clinical negligence claim arising from a delay in diagnosing breast cancer, resulting in permanent physical and psychological symptoms, and a loss of fertility.  As a result of the delay in diagnosis, the Claimant required a double mastectomy, chemotherapy and radiotherapy which would all have been avoided but for the negligence.  Permanent physical symptoms included bilateral breast deformity and asymmetry, chronic lymphoedema, peripheral neuropathy and chronic back pain. The Claimant developed an anxiety and depressive order and suffered loss of fertility and a reduced life expectancy as a result of the negligence.  Causation of the Claimant’s injuries and the permanent symptoms resulting in an inability to return to work was strongly contested by the Defendant. Ten disciplines of expert evidence were relied upon, and the case was listed for a 10-day trial of causation and quantum.  Leila acted for the Claimant throughout this claim in respect of pleadings and conducting conferences with experts.  Settlement in the sum of £1,545,000.00 was eventually reached at a joint settlement meeting before trial.  Leila was instructed by Lindsay Clark at <a href="https://www.switalskis.com/people">Switalskis</a>.  Leila is a specialist in the fields of Clinical Negligence and Inquests. She is Head of the Inquests Team at Parklane Plowden Chambers and is ranked as a leading junior in Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners for Clinical Negligence and Inquests and Inquiries. Her full profile can be accessed <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/barristers/leila-benyounes">here</a>

Thompson’s Application for Judicial Review: Considering when a coroner becomes functus officio and when to reconsider anonymity orders

Thompson’s Application for Judicial Review provides clarity on when a coroner becomes functus officio and that a grant of anonymity cannot be reviewed after the conclusion of an inquest.  Background  This was a legacy inquest into the death of Kathleen Thompson who died as a result of two bullets being fired into her garden in 1971.  Soldier D was called to give evidence at the inquest. His identity was anonymised. It was held that the operational duty to protect life under Article 2 was engaged and anonymity remained throughout proceedings.  On 23 June 2021 the coroner gave a summary of her findings in open court but indicated her ‘full decision’ would be circulated within days. She concluded that Soldier D, on the balance of probabilities, shot Ms Thompson in circumstances which were not justified.  A written decision was handed down 9 days after the hearing on 8 July 2021. That day the applicant’s legal representatives requested the coroner reconsidered the grant of anonymity alongside referring Soldier D to the Director of Public Prosecutions (‘DPP’).  The applicant issued an application for leave to apply for judicial review proceedings on 28 September 2022. Shortly thereafter, on 5 October 2022, the coroner sent a letter to all parties of the inquest indicating she had intended to pass on the findings to the DPP. In addressing anonymity, she invited submissions in relation to whether she was functus officio.  A separate case management order, in the judicial review proceedings, was sent on 6 October 2022 asking for the coroner’s correspondence on this issue.  On the 26 October 2022 the coroner concluded she was functus officio and not in a position to reconsider the application to rescind anonymity. She went on to add that had she not been functus officio, she would not have removed the anonymity and provided her reasoning.  First Instance  Mr Justice Scofield made a finding that the coroner had erred in law by failing to reconsider Soldier D’s anonymity after having made clear findings about the unlawful use of force.  Mr Justice Scofield went on to state that anonymity orders ought to be revisited and reviewed throughout the process of the inquest. The main factor in this case was the change in circumstances when the coroner found Soldier D had used unjustified force which resulted in Ms Thompson’s death.  Ultimately Mr Justice Scofield found any reconsideration of an Article 2 granted anonymity order would remain given the risk to Soldier D’s life would increase following the findings made.  However, Mr Justice Scofield found that the coroner was correct to find herself functus officio at the time the request to reconsider anonymity was made.  Mr Justice Scofield did not grant relief as it would serve no purpose given the coroner had clearly stated how she would have approached the matter of anonymity.  Appeal  The grounds of appeal where as follows:  <ol class="wp-block-list"> <li>Whether the judge had erred in finding she was functus officio for the purpose of reviewing whether a grant of anonymity should remain?</li>  <li>Whether, even if functus officio, the coroner could review the anonymity in the same way she could make a referral to the DPP?</li>  <li>Alternatively, whether the judge erred in refusing to remit the anonymity decision back to the coroner for reconsideration in light of the court’s judgement?</li> </ol>  The Court of Appeal noted that Rule 4 of the Coroners (Practice and Procedure) Rules (Northern Ireland 1963 (SR 1963/199) as amended (‘the 1963 rules’) set out ‘every inquest shall be opened, adjourned and closed in a formal manner’.  The Court of Appeal considered at Re McDonnell’s Application [2015] NICA 72 at [25] which interpreted rule 4 as meaning ‘…once the inquest is closed the coroner no longer has power to take any steps in relation to the conduct of the inquest. To do so would offend the rule that he has become functus officio. That includes any steps in relation to questions of anonymity and screening which he had to deal with in the course of the inquest’.  The Court of Appeal found the inquest was concluded once the coroner delivered the final written ruling on 8 July 2022.   They drew a comparison with the rules in England and Wales, namely the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (‘the 2009 Act’). In the 2009 Act there is no provision which sets out how to ‘close’ an inquest. Rather section 10 of the 2009 Act sets out what occurs at the end of an inquest, namely the coroner makes a record of inquest.  The Chief Coroner’s Guidance on the Bench Chapter 15 expands upon this stating at §13 ‘On signing the ROI [Record of Inquest] the inquest and investigation are formally concluded, and the coroner becomes functus officio. The coroner may still exercise their power under Paragraph 7 of Schedule 5 of the 2009 Act to make a report to prevent future deaths, but as their investigation has now concluded and they have no power to hear any further evidence’.  The court rejected the submission the inquest remained open by virtue of the coroner deciding whether to make a referral to the DPP. The Court of Appeal agreed with Mr Justice Scofield that the DPP was a separate obligation distinct from the coroner’s investigation and could arise after the inquest was concluded.  The Court of Appeal held the application of anonymity for a witness was part of the coroner’s common law powers in conducting proceedings.  In summarising the relevant case law, the Court of Appeal noted two situations in which anonymity may need to be reconsidered:  <ol class="wp-block-list"> <li>Where there was a material change of circumstances which merited a re-balancing of the competing interests at play; and/or</li>  <li>The coroner is requested to by either the witness, or a properly interested person (‘PIP’) on the basis that there is a change in circumstances or new information. </li> </ol>  The Court of Appeal agreed with Mr Justice Scofield in that there was a collective failure to not resolve anonymity at an appropriate time before conclusion of the inquest. The Court of Appeal held that there should have been an adjournment following the findings to allow any representations on anonymity.   As to the final ground of appeal, the Court of Appeal accepted Mr Justice Scofield’s common-sense approach. In particular, that there was no utility in quashing the inquest and remitting the matter back to the coroner as the coroner would have maintained the grant of anonymity. The Court of Appeal saw no identifiable issues with the coroner’s reasoning.  The Court of Appeal concluded four key points in order to avoid similar issues arising in future inquests:  <ol class="wp-block-list"> <li>For avoidance of any doubt a coroner should state an inquest is being opened, adjourned and closed. This should ideally be in open court.</li>  <li>It was best practice to give advance warning of the coroner’s intention to close the inquest to PIPs.</li>  <li>PIPs should seek to identify any ancillary issues as soon as possible after findings are promulgated.</li>  <li>A coroner, after making a critical finding of behaviour of an individual with anonymity, should consider whether this necessitates reopening the issue of the grant of anonymity and seek submissions to that affect.</li> </ol>  The appeal was dismissed.  Comment  Albeit this is a Northern Irish Court of Appeal case, it clearly reflects the position of the law in the 2009 Act and indeed was considered as part of the reasoning.   The judgment provides clarity on when an inquest is concluded, and the coroner becomes functus officio.  For coroners in Northern Ireland and England and Wales alike, it serves as a useful reminder of their duties in respect of anonymity irrespective of applications made by the interested persons. It highlights the need to review anonymity in situations where a critical finding being made which materially changes the circumstances.  It also serves as a reminder to interested persons to ensure they raise ancillary issues, such as anonymity, prior to conclusion of an inquest.  The full judgment can be found <a href="https://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NICA/2025/25.pdf">here</a>.  Sophie Watson is a member of the Inquests and Inquiries Team at Parklane Plowden Chambers and regularly acts on behalf of Interested Persons at Inquests. Sophie’s full profile can be accessed <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/sophie-watson/">here</a>.

HQA v Newcastle-upon-Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

<a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/howard-elgot/">Howard Elgot</a> and <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/megan-crowther/">Megan Crowther</a> of Parklane Plowden Chambers, instructed by David Bradshaw of <a href="https://www.hay-kilner.co.uk/">Hay & Kilner LLP</a>, acted for the Claimant in her claim against the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in a 5-day High Court trial at the Royal Courts of Justice last week. Judgment has been reserved. The trial is to determine breach of duty and causation, and liability has been strongly contested by the Trust. The claim was brought after the Claimant, who can be referred to only as HQA because of an anonymity order made by the High Court, suffered severe brain damage after undergoing open heart surgery at the Freeman Hospital, Newcastle. The Claimant had suffered congenital heart problems from birth and had undergone many operations and other procedures over her lifetime. In order to gain access to her heart, the surgeon used an oscillating saw. The saw slipped, and instead of the saw cutting through only the anterior section of the Claimant’s sternum, the saw went fully through the sternum and into her aorta, cutting off the blood supply to her brain. It then took so long for the surgeons to put the Claimant on cardio-pulmonary bypass that she suffered very severe hypoxic brain damage. The time was prolonged in part because another surgeon, who had been called in because of the emergency, attempted to cannulate one femoral artery, the artery dissected, and another femoral artery had to be prepared and cannulated. Following the operation, HQA’s family were told to expect the worst, but the Claimant has at least made a partial recovery. The allegations against the hospital are that the surgeons did not obtain HQA’s informed consent to the operation, that the surgeons failed to plan adequately for the possibility of the catastrophic event that occurred, and that the operating surgeon ought to have been able to keep control of his saw. The Claimant’s expert cardiac surgeon advised that the dissection of the artery in the panic of the emergency was an inherent risk and therefore a free-standing claim relating to the arterial dissection could not be pursued. The allegations that the surgeons failed to prepare for the possibility of the aorta being pierced during the surgery were focused upon the CT Angiogram that HQA had undergone before surgery, and another CT Angiogram that she had undergone in 2016. A central issue was whether HQA’s aorta was so closely applied to the back of her sternum that any slip of the saw or use of any dissecting instrument would inevitably pierce the aorta. The claim is estimated to have a value of over £5,000,000.

North Eastern Circuit Women’s Forum Event in Newcastle – Women at the Bar and the Bench

This evening, Parklane Plowden is delighted to host the NEC Women’s Forum event at our Portland House premises in Newcastle.  Throughout the year, the Women’s Forum has focused on pivotal issues such as the gender pay gap and the progression of women at the Bar. This event will delve into the challenges women encounter in advancing their careers, while also spotlighting success stories and exploring practical strategies for overcoming barriers.  <a href="https://www.parklaneplowden.co.uk/our-barristers/leila-benyounes/">Leila Benyounes</a>, Vice Chair of the Women’s Forum, will chair tonight’s event.

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)

Our Expertise

Jim Hester writes about Silicosis claims for LexisNexis

Welcome back Emily Ross

10th September 2025 | Inquest Law with Lunch

Court Affirms Gender Reassignment Surgery as a Joint Financial Responsibility &#8211; JY V KF {2025} EWFC 195

Case Report: R (On the application of Jada Bailey) v HM Senior Coroner for East London [2025] EWHC 1637 (Admin)

Avaia Williams &#8211; Denying Pupil Barrister Entry

Leila Benyounes &#8211; £1.5 million Settlement in Delay in Diagnosis of Breast Cancer

Thompson&#8217;s Application for Judicial Review: Considering when a coroner becomes functus officio and when to reconsider anonymity orders

HQA v Newcastle-upon-Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

North Eastern Circuit Women’s Forum Event in Newcastle &#8211; Women at the Bar and the Bench

Latest News

Jim Hester writes about Silicosis claims for LexisNexis

Welcome back Emily Ross

10th September 2025 | Inquest Law with Lunch

Court Affirms Gender Reassignment Surgery as a Joint Financial Responsibility – JY V KF {2025} EWFC 195

Court Affirms Gender Reassignment Surgery as a Joint Financial Responsibility – JY V KF {2025} EWFC 195

Avaia Williams – Denying Pupil Barrister Entry

Leila Benyounes – £1.5 million Settlement in Delay in Diagnosis of Breast Cancer

Thompson’s Application for Judicial Review: Considering when a coroner becomes functus officio and when to reconsider anonymity orders

North Eastern Circuit Women’s Forum Event in Newcastle – Women at the Bar and the Bench