Have you or a member of your family suffered an injury due to mistakes made during medical treatment? Our specialist medical negligence solicitors can advise if you are eligible to make a compensation claim.
We provide specialist services throughout England, south Wales and north Wales – from London to Cardiff, Swansea, Newport, Wrexham, Bangor and more. We have claimed millions in compensation for our clients following injury, illness or death as a result of poor medical treatment.
If you believe you or a family member are a victim of clinical negligence contact our team of lawyers today, for free advice and guidance on pursuing a compensation claim, without obligation. We will represent you on a no win, no fee basis. Further details on this agreement will be given during your free consultation.
Our solicitors have been top ranked by both the Chambers & Partners and Legal 500 independent legal guides for this area of law. We are the only top ranked firm for medical negligence in Wales and one of the largest practices in the UK. Our lawyers are highly experienced and can provide a wide range of specialist services.
For your convenience we also run regular free legal advice clinics where you can come along and discuss your situation with one of our specialist legal advisors.
These clinics cover a range of areas including medical negligence, a full list of upcoming clinics can be found here.
Medical negligence is caused by unacceptable clinical treatment, resulting in unnecessary illness, injury or death. Health care providers have a duty to provide acceptable levels of care and treatment to their patients. Failure to do so may result in a patient being able to bring a compensation claim.
The following will apply to you:
Our expert solicitors will fully explain the claims process with you during your free consultation.
A fatal medical negligence compensation claim will take into account the psychological impact caused by the death as well as the financial impact to you and your family.
Time limits will apply to your case and it is important that you consider taking action, and contacting a solicitor as soon as possible.
Our top ranking lawyers will investigate your claim for free and may be able to secure an interim payment before your case is settled.
The process can be lengthy, especially in high value cases. It will require detailed medical evidence so that your claim can be defined to both the solicitors representing you and the lawyers defending the case. This evidence will be provided by experts, who will need to examine you as well as the circumstances that led to the injury. The process may also require you to attend court if an early settlement is not reached.
Employing the services of an appropriate solicitor is key to this process. Many lawyers will claim to be experts in this field, and will genuinely try to assist you, however they may not have the necessary expertise to get you the maximum amount of compensation. When looking for a medical negligence solicitor you should research their literature for relevant accreditations and, if necessary, make contact with them to ask for case examples.
If you live in England or Wales you should not limit your search for a solicitor to your local area. Any firm based within your jurisdiction can help. You won’t need to travel for meetings as your solicitor will travel to you, and will conduct the majority of your case via your preferred method of communication.
Our team is top ranked for their work in this area of law and are accredited by AVMA, APIL and The Law Society. We are also listed by Scope as medical negligence experts. Our solicitors provide free advice and guidance whilst investigating your claim and can organise free home visits when necessary.
Personal injury and illness cases are subject to time limits. It is best to contact a solicitor as early as possible to ensure your case can be dealt with.
Generally the time limit for a clinical negligence case is three years from the date the treatment took place or the date you were made aware that something had gone wrong. These rules can be extremely complex and varied and a lawyer will be able to check which time limit applies to you after some initial investigations. In some cases time limits can be extended.
We will further discuss these limits with you during your free consultation with.
We will provide you with free advice whilst we investigate whether you have a case for compensation. After our investigations, we will tell you whether you have a reasonable chance of success, and you can therefore instruct us to act on your behalf.
If you chose to instruct us we can offer you a no win, no fee agreement where possible, meaning you won’t charged legal fees if you are unsuccessful. If we do win your claim you will be charged a success fee that will be taken from your damages. All other legal fees will be covered by the defendant should the case be successful.
All the financial information will be discussed with you, free of charge, before you decide to instruct us.
We have specialists based in London and south Wales who can help you investigate and pursue your case. We offer:
We offer free drop-in legal advice sessions across south Wales for you to come and discuss your medical negligence compensation claim with us. If you are unable to attend one of our medical negligence advice clinics, contact our legal advisors by phone for a free consultation, or to arrange a home visit.
All of our free legal advice clinics are drop-in sessions meaning no appointment is necessary, a full list of all the upcoming sessions is available here.
Claimant awarded £10,000 in respect of negligent treatment that her late son received from the time of his birth until the time of his death, aged nine days
The claimant was admitted to Homerton Hospital in July 2011 at 33 weeks gestation. She was suffering from sickle cell disease and was treated with antibiotics and analgesia.
On 3 August 2011, the decision was made to carry out an emergency caesarean section due to the claimant’s sickle cell crisis, chorioamnionitis and lack of progress in labour. The claimant’s son was delivered at 20.59 on 3 August 2011 and was transferred to the neonatal unit because of his prematurity.
Initially, he was in a good condition, but on 9 August 2011, he deteriorated. He developed an infection and passed away on 11 August 2011, aged 9 days.
It was alleged that on 9 August 2011 Jayden’s blood tests showed significant abnormalities and that a competent clinician would have recognised that the liver test readings were abnormal, and would have discussed the results with a senior neonatal clinician. It was further alleged that any competent senior neonatal clinician reviewing the results would have known that the child probably had an infection which was affecting his liver, that it was viral in origin and that anti-viral treatment should have been instigated.
It was admitted by the defendant that there had been a failure to administer Acyclovir by 8.00pm on 9 August 2011. Instead, Jayden did not in fact receive Acyclovir until 2.00pm on 10 August 2011, resulting in an 18 hours delay in administering treatment. It was denied by the defendant that the delay in treatment altered Jayden’s outcome.
It was the claimant’s case that if the abnormalities in the child’s blood test had been reviewed on the afternoon of 9 August 2011 and treatment instigated by 8pm, on the balance of probabilities, he would have survived.
A settlement was reached in the total sum of £10,000.
Date of Judgment/Settlement: 12.16
Claimant Solicitor: Sophie Jones
Claimant awarded £18,000 as a result of a delay in performing hip replacement surgery
On 2 December 2010, the Claimant attended her GP Surgery and it was noted the Claimant was suffering with hip pain. X-rays confirmed she was suffering from osteoarthritis, worse on the right than the left and she was referred for a surgical opinion.
In February 2011, the claimant was reviewed by an Associate Specialist in Orthopaedics at Tameside General Hospital. It was noted that the Claimant had suffered with intermittent pain in her right hip for two years and the symptoms had worsened and were interfering with her mobility. It was further noted that the Claimant had recently started having problems in her left hip and it was incorrectly recorded that the Claimant was not keen on the idea of surgery. No discussion surrounding the treatment options including surgery and steroid injections was discussed or recorded in the medical records. The claimant was simply offered steroid injections.
By February 2012 (following a delay due to being lost to follow up) the Claimant was reviewed by a Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon and again only steroid injections were offered.
The first injection was administered in March 2012. At review in April 2012, the Claimant was seen by the Consultant, who confirmed the Claimant was too young for hip replacement surgery (she was 51) and in a letter the Consultant stated there was “no indication” for surgery. An x-ray of her hips was carried out but the Consultant failed to review the images which in fact showed significant bone loss and significant osteoarthritis, such that steroid injections would provide little to no benefit.
Over the following months the Claimant continued to experience agonising pain that impacted upon her ability to walk and her ability to work effectively.
In September 2012, the Claimant received injections of steroids into her right hip. The claimant stated the injections provided minimal temporary pain relief.
The claimant lost faith in her consultant and arranged a second opinion. Upon seeing the second consultant he confirmed her April 2012 x-rays were such that surgery was the only real option and he listed her for a total hip replacement. He was unable to list her for surgery for a further three months due to the claimant undergoing a steroid injection in September 2012 which increased the risk of infection.
The Claimant finally underwent a right ceramic on ceramic total hip replacement in December 2012 and reported a good outcome from surgery.
It was alleged that had the claimant been appropriately consented and counselled about her options for surgery, she could have been placed on the waiting list for surgery in February 2011. It was argued that had the Claimant been offered surgery in March 2012 and/or April 2012 and/or September 2012 and appropriately counselled about the treatment options she would have elected to have surgery.
The Claimant would have avoided paying for the surgery to be conducted privately and would have avoided the pain and suffering and loss of amenity during the period of delay.
A settlement was reached in the total sum of £18,000
Date of Judgment/Settlement: 12.16
Claimant Solicitor: Helen Neville
Claimant awarded £45,000 on behalf of his late wife for a failure to diagnose metastatic cancer.
The claimant’s wife was diagnosed at the age of 40 in 2006 with cancer of the left breast which was treated appropriately with surgery, radiotherapy and endocrine treatment.
Three and a half years later, in September 2009, she started to develop pain in her left upper arm and shoulder and had abnormalities in imaging of her shoulder, both on a bone scan and CT scan. At that time she was referred for rheumatological review and was initially seen in rheumatology in March 2010, at which time she had been experiencing pain for six months.
An X-ray in July 2010 was suspicious of metastatic disease with a sclerotic lesion in the shoulder. This was initially seen in rheumatology and subsequently oncology and further investigation was done with a bone scan, showing increased uptake in the shoulder, compatible with an abnormality. A PET scan in November 2010 confirmed abnormal uptake in the left shoulder. Differential diagnosis was unclear and included Paget’s disease but malignancy could not be excluded.
She was subsequently treated as if this was Paget’s disease or a mechanical problem and sadly no further investigations for cancer were undertaken at this time. She subsequently re-presented in March 2014 with widespread metastatic disease and died some three months after her confirmation of metastatic bone disease having received no palliative treatment or support.
It was alleged that an earlier diagnosis would have led treatment (endocrine with discontinuation of tamoxifen). The claimant’s wife would have been monitored with regular scans which would have picked up the development of further metastatic disease at an earlier stage. This would have allowed earlier use of radiotherapy to minimise pain and improve function.
It was accepted that her disease was not curable but she would have been spared considerable pain both in relation to her shoulder and subsequently her sciatic pain. Had she been recognised as having metastatic disease this pain would have been identified as attributable to her bone metastases at an earlier stage and managed pro-actively. If her cancer had been diagnosed in November 2010 and managed from that point her quality of would have been better and she would have had active cancer management and pain control and would have been better able to do normal activities of daily living including housework/chores and would have required less care from the claimant and her mother and stepfather.
The earlier recognition of metastatic disease would have meant that supportive teams (e.g. Macmillan/Marie Curie nurses) would have had an input into her care, thereby reducing physical pain and increasing emotional support to her and her family. In addition, her GP would have been aware of her diagnosis and been in a better position to manage her symptoms and support the family.
A settlement was reached in the total sum of £45,000.
Date of Judgment/Settlement: 12.16
Claimant Solicitor: Helen Neville
Claimant awarded £30,000 as a result of negligent failure to offer the correct orthodontic treatment options and subsequent unnecessary removal of teeth.
This case concerns a claim against a private orthodontist and medical issues concerning maxillofacial surgery and psychiatric treatment.
The Claimant was first seen by the defendant in September 2007. During that appointment it was confirmed that she would require orthodontic treatment. The Claimant was not advised of any underlying skeletal problem, nor was she advised that the option of surgery was available to her. She subsequently underwent the removal of all four first premolar teeth and fixed braces were applied.
By September 2011 the Claimant noticed no improvement in the appearance of her top teeth. She experienced pain and noticed that her top lip was disappearing. She sought a second opinion in October 2011 where she was referred to the department of Oral and Maxillofacial surgery at the Royal Surrey County Hospital.
At this attendance the Claimant was advised that the four pre-molars which had been removed should not have been extracted and that she was at risk of losing her teeth.
The claimant required further maxillofacial surgery and in June 2013 she underwent surgery. Her lower jaw was surgically broken and re-aligned. Both jaws were immobile and elastic banded together for 7 – 8 weeks following surgery. She ate liquidised food for 7-8 weeks.
It was alleged that the defendant was negligent in failing to offer the two treatment options at the outset; either to do nothing at all or to have surgery to the lower jaw plus a brace. The brace would have been on for 18 months and the surgery would have involved 6 months’ worth of treatment, providing a total treatment period of 2 years.
It was alleged that the defendant’s negligence had caused the claimant the unnecessary removal of four teeth, the surgery she underwent to the upper jaw (she would always have had surgery to the lower jaw), a period of 4 ½ years protracted treatment, a period of time whereby her teeth were very painful, a longer period of mouth ulcers, and the period of time where she had a changed facial profile. In addition psychiatric evidence was obtained which confirmed the negligent treatment had resulted in the claimant suffering depression.
Settlement was reached in the total sum of £30,000.
Date of Judgment/Settlement: 03.15
Court: Out of court settlement
Claimant Solicitor: Helen Neville
Claimant awarded £35,000 due to a negligent failure to identify bowel obstruction prior to perforation, followed by a delay in undertaking surgery which in turn led to widespread contamination of the peritoneal cavity.
R v Medway NHS Foundation Trust was a medical negligence case concerning the delay and failure to diagnose a bowel obstruction and failure take appropriate steps to remedy this prior to perforation. It also concerned allegations that A&E should have admitted the claimant’s husband on two earlier occasions and that radiology results were misreported.
In April 2011 the claimant’s husband was suffering from diarrhoea and abdominal pain and contacted his GP. Following several further appointments in April, May and June a referral had been made to Medway Hospital but no appointment was given.
On 3 June 2011 the claimant’s husband attended the A&E unit at Medway Hospital complaining of a six week history of diarrhoea, abdominal pain and passing blood in his stools. Blood tests were taken and he was discharged home with antibiotics. He re-attended A&E that same day, was re-examined and an abdominal x-ray was taken. He was again discharged.
The claimant’s husband was again seen by his GP on 8 June 2011, on the second visit of the day he was transferred to Medway Hospital. Two further x-rays were taken in the following days, the results of the latter prompted a CT scan. After reviewing the results of the CT scan, doctors referred the claimant’s husband for surgery.
The claimant’s husband underwent surgery for a bowel perforation on 11 June 2011, and required admission to intensive care following the surgery. A further surgical procedure into the abdomen was performed on 18 June 2011.
On 10 August 2011 during a dressing change in theatre the claimant’s husband began to deteriorate rapidly. He passed away the following day.
It was alleged that there was a negligent failure to identify the bowel obstruction prior to perforation. Once the bowel had perforated there was a delay in undertaking the surgery leading to widespread faecal contamination inside the abdomen. This resulted in the need for a prolonged period in intensive care, numerous dressing changes and the eventual lung infection which caused the death of the claimant’s husband.
A settlement was reached in the total sum of £35,000.
Date of Judgment/Settlement: 06.16
Court: Out of court settlement
Claimant Solicitor: Helen Neville
Claimant awarded £65,000 due to mismanagement and negligently performed surgery on her ingrowing toenail.
S v Dr. Subhash Kaushal was a medical negligence case concerning treatment provided to a 17 year old claimant by her GP in respect of the management of her ingrowing toenail.
The claimant underwent a wedge resection in April 2013. However, no nail was removed and only two small areas of skin were excised from either side of the toenail. Following the procedure the claimant suffered pain, bleeding and symptoms of an infection including the toe turning a blue/grey colour. Black areas then started to show and by this time our client was already unable to walk and was in great pain.
It was alleged the surgery performed in April 2013 was negligently performed and that there had been a failure to refer our client to hospital. By the time the claimant was referred to hospital her toe was heavily infected and required several procedures to remove dead and infected tissue from the wound. She was told her toe would have to be amputated and was very distressed by this.
Luckily the procedures worked and the claimant’s big toe was not amputated. Sadly the toe was severely disfigured with half of the big toe now missing and ending in a prominent “point”. It is now painful for the claimant to walk and she continues to be unable to wear open toed shoes or fashionable shoes due to the toe being “compressed”.
A settlement was reached in the total sum of £65,000.
The compensation enabled her to undertake counselling to help her come to terms with what has happened to her, for her suffering and loss of amenity and for items such as the padding/protection for her toe, insoles, podiatry appointments and travel expenses.
Date of Judgment/Settlement: 12.01.17
Court: Out of court settlement
Claimant Solicitor: Helen Neville
Claimant Age at date of accident/negligence: 17
Age at date of trial/settlement: 20
Claimant awarded £195,000.00 due to negligence: Surgeon chooses wrong procedure resulting in a misdiagnosis of incurable cancer
Summary of Events
B v Princess Alexandra Hospitals NHS Trust was a clinical negligence case concerning the claimant’s surgery on 28th August 2009 to fix a leak in her colon arising after an operation called a “laparoscopic sigmoid colectomy”.
The case was very complex with 10 expert witnesses and 11 factual witnesses including 5 treating medical witnesses and it was listed for a 10 day Trial.
It was alleged by the claimant that during the laparotomy (open surgery) to fix the leak, the surgeon negligently chose a “loop ileostomy” as opposed to a conventional procedure called a “Hartmann’s procedure”. This decision left the leak in place which then led to sepsis. In a conventional Hartmann’s procedure the leak would have been sealed and the patient would have been left with a colostomy which could have then been reversed after the bowel had healed.
The claimant alleged that had a Hartmann’s procedure been performed she would have had an uncomplicated recovery and avoided, amongst other things, sepsis, a stroke, a hernia.
There had also been a misdiagnosis of incurable cancer leading to unnecessary chemotherapy with associated side effects. This was because the sepsis had been interpreted as metastatic disease and it was not until our experts reviewed the case that the claimant found out she never had cancer.
The defendant maintained a denial of liability and causation throughout the case.
The defendant stated that the choice of procedure was for the surgeon alone and that a responsible body of surgeons would have chosen, as the defendant surgeon did, to perform a loop ileostomy as opposed to a Hartmann’s procedure.
The defendant stated that the sepsis the claimant suffered was not due to continued leakage following the loop ileostomy, but, rather the result of an initial septic insult from the original surgery.
The claimant’s experts agree that the claimant had made a fantastic recovery from her stroke.
On 7 April 2015 a joint settlement meeting was held and the claim was settled in the total sum of £195,000.
The compensation comprised of
Date of Judgment/Settlement: 07.04.15
Court: Out of court settlement
Claimant Solicitor: Helen Neville
Claimant Age at date of accident/negligence: 56
Age at date of trial/settlement: 62
Hugh James recovers £190.000 for a client who was advised by his original solicitors that a claim could not be made.
Andrew Davies settled a case of gallbladder surgery negligence brought against Cwm Taf Local Health Board, where damages totalled £190,000.
The claimant (AJ) underwent surgery in 2001 after being diagnosed with stones in his gallbladder and bile duct. AJ underwent a procedure known as endoscopic sphincterotomy to remove the gallstones. After the procedure he began to suffer recurring pain and illness and over four years later in November 2005 was readmitted to hospital. Tests revealed that the gallbladder had become inflamed and required removal. AJ was placed on a waiting list for gallbladder removal surgery and given antibiotics as a course of treatment.
In January 2006, surgery was performed to remove the inflamed gallbladder and shortly after AJ began to suffer consistent abdominal pain. Tests were preformed, which highlighted abnormalities in liver function, prompting further investigation. An ultra sound scan showed that fluid, believed to have come from the bile duct had leaked into the abdominal area.
AJ began to deteriorate further and was transferred to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham where he underwent additional surgery. It became apparent that he had sustained a major injury to the bile duct following removal of his gallbladder, which required reconstructive surgery. Due to complications from the initial removal procedure, AJ will continue to endure health issues. He is susceptible to further complications and may require additional surgery.
AJ issued a complaint against the Cwm Taf Local Health Board for what he considered to be gallbladder negligence. In response they cited that an inflamed gallbladder had made the surgery difficult and that the injury sustained was “forgivable”. AJ continued to pursue his complaint and instructed solicitors, who on receipt of an expert medical report, advised that a claim could not be made!
It was suspected that improper legal advice had been given which was confirmed by a secondary medical expert. AJ then instructed Andrew Davies of Hugh James Solicitors Cardiff to act on his behalf. Following the intervention by Andrew, on August 7th 2008 Cwm Taf Local Health Board admitted that surgery had caused harm and prolonged illness to the patient, which led to a settlement of £190,000 being awarded.
The entire episode was and will continue to be distressing for AJ whose life has changed dramatically due to medical negligence. Andrew Davies from the Medical Negligence team at Hugh James Solicitors is quoted as saying “this was a challenging case, it appeared everyone was against AJ but his belief and determination led to him receiving the compensation he truly deserved following an extremely difficult and life changing period”.
AJ also offered comment and said “I’m disappointed by the advice I received from my former solicitor. When I consulted Andrew Davies of Hugh James Solicitors he was very professional and had reassured me that there was merit in my claim. Andrew did everything possible to assist me during this difficult period and I regard him as a real gentleman, thank you”
Hugh James recovered almost £5million for client against Great Ormond Street Hospital for breach of duty.
Mrs E’s son developed epilepsy at the age of 7 and despite changes of medication continued to suffer erratic seizures. He was referred to a Consultant Neurologist at Great Ormond Street Hospital where it was decided to reduce the dose of his medications in an attempt to provoke his seizures in order for them to be recorded.
The boy received his (reduced) medications at the hospital and began a series of tests. The boy was to be monitored at all times due to the reduced medication and the subsequent risks of this. After being advised that his mother was leaving and that he was to be monitored by a nurse the boy was left alone in his room. He then left his room unaccompanied and went to the toilet unaided. There he suffered a seizure and his airway was obstructed. This led to inadequate ventilation and eventually, as a consequence of this, the boy suffered from a cardiac arrest which resulted in catastrophic brain injury.
The boy is now in a persistent vegetative state with heavy nursing needs. Over time the boy has improved to a low awareness state but has remained totally dependent for all activities of daily living.
Proceedings were served and Great Ormond Street Hospital subsequently admitted responsibility for the breach of duty. An initial offer of £4,083,700 was made but not accepted. A further meeting considered a number of factors and a proposed settlement of £4,923,553 was offered. This was deemed as reflecting a good settlement for the Claimant, and was preferable to the risks of proceeding to trial.
At the same time Mrs E brought a separate claim in her own right in relation to the nervous shock she sustained resulting from the actions which led to her son’s injuries. She was the 2nd Claimant in this case.
The initial offer of £12,500 was rejected by Hugh James who considered her pain, suffering and loss and the fact that she had undergone therapy as recommended but had not made the expected recovery. Mrs E was later reimbursed a total of £30,000.
Over £1million recovered against the Prince Charles Hospital in Merthyr.
Following a road traffic accident Mr P suffered multiple injuries and was admitted to the Prince Charles Hospital. He had suffered serious, but not apparently life threatening injuries. He had fractures to his right femur, right foot, and left ankle. There were concerns however that he may also have suffered internal injuries.
He was treated for shock and was resuscitated overnight with fluids. He deteriorated during the course of the following morning and the clinicians responded by giving more resuscitation fluids on a number of occasions.
The quantities of fluid given were excessive and insufficient attention was given to recording and maintaining his fluid balance which led to the “flooding” of the air spaces in his lungs by fluid. Following this the Claimant sustained a catastrophic brain injury.
He now has limited awareness of his surroundings, cannot speak, is doubly incontinent, and is incapable of any voluntary movement.
The claimant suggested that the injuries could have been avoided however the defendant argued that the cause of the injuries were not preventable.
As there was no scope in this case for responsibility for only part of the Claimant’s injuries the result of the trial would therefore be “all or nothing”. Proceedings were served and the defendant denied liability.
A joint expert meeting took place to discuss the cause of his injuries and from this it was concluded that there was a strong element of uncertainty about the outcome of this case. It was decided that the litigation risks in this claim justified the consideration of a discounted settlement.
The defendant offered to compromise liability for 50% of the value of the claim but this was rejected because there was concern that the claimant could be in a position where the compensation could only meet a proportion of his future needs.
Following this the claim was finally settled and court approval given for a lump sum payment of £1,407,946.48. In addition to this there will be annual life time of payments of £104,874.90 for the Claimant’s future care and future case management costs.
Highly regarded for its handling of a broad range of work, including brain injury cases, fatal claims and public inquiries. Recent work highlights include several high-value cerebral palsy claims.
Stephen Webber is noted for a range of clinical negligence work including public inquiries and is commended as ‘excellent for high-value brain injury claims.’
Mari Rosser focuses on brain injury claims for adults and children as well as fatal claims. Sources highlight her ‘huge reservoir of experience – her judgement is very impressive.’
Andrew Davies is praised as being ‘always on the top of his game – very, very thorough in preparation.’ He is well regarded for brain injury and paralysis cases and has also developed a niche practice in negligent gall bladder surgery and compartment syndrome claims.
Chambers UK 2015
‘Innovative and hardworking’, Hugh James is a ‘market leader’ which is establishing a strong national presence. It is one of eight firms recognised nationally by SCOPE, and is also instructed by the Community Health Councils in Wales. Stephen Webber and Mari Rosser are ‘real stars’, and Andrew Davies and Hannah Williams are also recommended. The team draws on support from the firm’s Court of Protection, social worker and speech therapist departments.
The Legal 500 2014
“I have just come to the end of the above medical negligence case handled by Grainne Barton. I wanted to write on behalf of my wife and I to let you know of our sincere appreciation and gratitude to Mrs Barton in her handling of the case. We were always kept informed of any progress and always received a response to our emails, sometimes even late at night. Mrs Barton’s commitment to me as a client was exemplary, she was empathetic, approachable and very thorough and although always professional, was down to earth with a good sense of humour and made us both feel at ease. She many times put our minds at rest but did so without giving any false hope.
You have a great Solicitor representing your company and although a negligence case is stressful at times and not a nice thing to go through and we are glad it is all over, it was made easier knowing that Mrs Barton was fighting the case and was behind us all the way.”
“I consulted Hugh James after being disappointed by the advice I received from my former solicitor. The team at Hugh James were very professional and had reassured me that there was merit in my claim. They did everything possible to assist me during this difficult period, thank you”
“You have always been clear with your advice, prompt with your responses and sensitive in dealing with what is of course a stressful business. I will not hesitate to recommend your firm’s services in future, and please accept my thanks for an excellent service from a first class solicitor.