Ampersand Advocates Top Rankings success in latest Chambers and Partners UK Bar Guide
Ampersand has again received top tier rankings across a number of areas of practice in the latest published guide to the legal profession, Chambers and Partners UK Bar Guide 2021.
Ampersand received 58 listings across 14 areas of practice, ranking as top tier (band 1) in Clinical Negligence as a Set, and band 2 in Administrative & Public law, Civil Liberties & Human Rights, Commercial Dispute Resolution, Planning & Environment, Personal Injury and Restructuring/Insolvency as a Set. 5 members are noted as “star individuals”.
Noted as a Band 1 set for Clinical Negligence, “Ampersand Advocates retains its reputation as a market-leading stable for clinical negligence matters, garnering praise from instructing solicitors who describe it as “a well-organised stable with a good range of excellent advocates.” Its advocates continue to provide expert legal advice and representation to both pursuers and defenders in a wide range of disputes, including claims relating to birth and catastrophic brain and spinal injuries. Members are well versed in cases arising from alleged failures in diagnosis and surgical errors, and regularly appear at fatal accident inquiries. The stable also houses considerable expertise in multi-party actions stemming from the use of medical equipment, and several of its advocates have recently been involved in the Scottish Mesh Litigation, a class action in which over 500 claims were brought against the NHS in connection with allegedly defective vaginal mesh.”. Our rankings include 2 “Star Individuals”, Maria Maguire QC and David Stephenson QC, with 9 further silks and 6 juniors also ranked – Simon Bowie QC, Jamie Dawson QC, Simon Di Rollo QC, Una Doherty QC, Lisa Henderson QC, Vinit Khurana QC, Geoffrey Mitchell QC, Graham Pimrose QC, Lauren Sutherland QC, Fiona Drysdale, Mark Fitzpatrick, Archie MacSporran, James McConnell, Paul Reid and Phil Stuart.
Band 2 listings include Administrative & Public Law where Ampersand is praised “houses highly praised practitioners who are skilled at acting in public law cases involving significant constitutional and human rights issues. They frequently appear before the highest courts in the UK and the EU.” The rankings include “Star Individual” Aidan O’Neill QC, along with Douglas Ross QC, Laura-Anne van der Westhuizen and Paul Reid.
In Civil Liberties & Human Rights Ampersand is noted as a “highly regarded civil liberties and human rights stable, known for representing both private individuals and public bodies in significant proceedings. Practitioners at Ampersand are regularly instructed by the government and the Equality and Human Rights Commission.” The rankings include Aidan O’Neill QC and Douglas Ross QC.
In Commercial Dispute Resolution Chambers state Ampersand is “well renowned for its consistent involvement in high-profile commercial disputes. The stable offers a large team comprising highly rated advocates at the senior and junior level. The advocates are instructed on behalf of corporations and financial institutions and are involved in a variety of related areas of practice including intellectual property and insolvency.” The rankings include Robert Howie QC, Craig Sandison QC, Ross Anderson, Graeme Hawkes, Giles Reid, Paul Reid, Usman Tariq and Tim Young.
Within Personal Injury Ampersand “houses a number of dedicated senior and junior advocates, and instructing solicitors praise the “strength and depth of counsel available at the stable.” Members act for both pursuers and defenders, including several major insurers, in the full range of claims, and offer considerable expertise in the handling of catastrophic injury cases arising from RTAs and workplace accidents. The team is also well regarded for its expertise in complex product liability and occupier’s liability disputes and matters involving accidents abroad. The stable’s tenants are regularly called upon to appear in Fatal Accident Inquiries, where they have experience of acting for government agencies, health boards and local authorities.” Rankings include “Star Individuals” Maria Maguire QC and Graham Primrose QC with other ranked Dorothy Bain QC, Isla Davie QC, Simon Di Rollo QC, Lisa Henderson QC, Douglas Ross QC, Chris Marney and Louise Milligan.
Ampersand’s strong Planning & Environment team was recognised as “well regarded for the complex planning and environmental work undertaken by its advocates. Members of the stable regularly act in judicial reviews and challenges to planning permissions and frequently act on behalf of developers, objectors, public sector bodies and energy companies. Members are regularly engaged in high-profile matters, including the public inquires into the development of the former Royal High School in Edinburgh and the proposed Coul Links golf course development. One source says: “The chambers is excellent in terms of the calibre of advocates.””. Rankings include Malcolm Thomson QC as “Star Individual”, Marcus McKay QC, Ailsa Wilson QC and Laura-Anne van der Westhuizen.
Within Restructuring/Insolvency “Ampersand Advocates is well regarded for its handling of a wide range of restructuring and insolvency matters. The stable’s advocates are frequently instructed to represent administrators, companies, banks and insolvency office holders in complex claims involving allegations of wrongful trading and breach of fiduciary duty, among other matters. Members have experience of appearing in both domestic and cross-border matters, and are regularly called upon to act for and advise their clients on both contentious and non-contentious insolvency cases.” Rankings include Robert Howie QC and Usman Tariq.
There are individual rankings in Real Estate for Robert Howie QC, Craig Sandison QC, Ross Anderson, Giles Reid and Tim Young; Agriculture and Rural Affairs for Laura-Anne van der Westhuizen; Employment for Russell Bradley, Information Technology and Intellectual Property for Usman Tariq; Professional Negligence for Chris Marney and Paul Reid; and Tax for Ross Anderson.
The Ampersand clerks receive wide praise being described as “professional, friendly and accommodating at all times…. very responsive… they make every effort to accommodate almost impossible demands” and that Ampersand “is an extremely well run and efficient stable”.
The full rankings can be viewed on the Chambers and Partners website here.
Back
Comment by Lauren Sutherland QC – “First Do No Harm”: The report of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review
On the 8th of July The Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review, chaired by Baroness Julia Cumberlege published its long awaited report. Titled “First Do No Harm” it comes after a two-year review of patients in relation to Primodos [1], sodium valproate [2] and pelvic mesh implants [3]. Hernia mesh was not included in the review.
The review was announced in the House of Commons on 21st February 2018 by Jeremy Hunt the then secretary of State for Health and Social Care. Its purpose was to examine how the healthcare system in England responds to reports about harmful side effects from medicines and medical devices and to consider how to respond to them more quickly and effectively in the future.
The review team interviewed hundreds of people whose lives had been affected and also received written evidence. The team also took evidence from those in the healthcare system including regulators, professional bodies, manufacturers and policy makers.
Baroness Cumberlege said:
“I have conducted many reviews and inquiries over the years, but I have never encountered anything like this; the intensity of the suffering experienced by so many families, and the fact that they have endured it for decades. Much of this suffering was entirely avoidable, caused and compounded by failings in the health system itself.”
The Review’s major recommendations:
- That the government immediately issue a fulsome apology on behalf of the healthcare system to the families affected by Primodos, sodium valproate and pelvic mesh
- That a Patient Safety Commissioner is appointed to hold the system to account, monitor trends and demand action
- That separate schemes should be set up for Hormone Pregnancy Test, valproate and pelvic mesh to meet the cost of providing additional care and support for those who have experienced avoidable harm and are eligible to claim
- That a Redress Agency for those harmed by medicines and medical devices in future should be established. This will administer decisions using a non-adversarial process with determinations based on avoidable harm looking at systematic failings, rather than blaming individuals
- That there should be established two types of specialist centres, located regionally for mesh and separately for those affected by medication taken during pregnancy
- That the regulator of medicines and medical devices the MHRA needs to put patients at the heart of its activity and to overhaul adverse event reporting and medical device regulation
- That a central database should be created by collecting key details including the patient, the implanted device and the surgeon
- That the register of the General Medical Council should be expanded to include a list of financial and non-pecuniary interests for all doctors, as well as doctor’s clinical interests and specialisms
- That the Government should immediately set up a task force to implement the Review’s recommendations.
Comment
This is a bold and far reaching report which must be hugely welcomed by those who have campaigned tirelessly for years. The report has identified critical failings in the system which has led to unnecessary patient harm and suffering for many years. Having commissioned this important work the government must not ignore the recommendations influenced by those resistant to change. It is also hoped that it will be embraced by the Scottish Government to protect Scottish patients. This must be essential reading for all countries around the world interested in protecting patients from harm.Baroness Cumberlege recognised that in the UK:
“There is an institutional and professional resistance to changing practice even in the face of mounting safety concerns”.
“Mistakes are perpetuated through a culture of denial, a resistance to no-blame learning, and an absence of overall effective accountability”
Baroness Cumberlege found the system to be “disjointed, siloed, unresponsive and defensive”.
There was a failure to listen to patients and recognise that “the patients are its raison d’etre”.
The first step in making progress is recognising that we have a system which is deficient and does not protect patients. The next step is to act proactively to achieve change to ensure as far as possible that the scandals of recent years are not repeated.
Sadly the review did not include Essure, Roaccutane, PIP breast implants, cervical cancer vaccination, in utero exposure to hormones and valproate use in children. Hopefully there can be consideration of other areas where patients have been harmed at some point in the future and similar schemes introduced.
It is important that new treatments are offered to patients and there must be room for innovation and development. Developments in medicine have undoubtedly saved lives and innovation and research must not be curtailed or restricted unnecessarily and without cause. However, patient safety must be the paramount consideration for all.
The question is how to protect patients but promote development and it seems clear that the appointment of an independent Patient Safety Commissioner must be a step in the right direction. If there is to be any improvement that person must stand outwith the system and be independent of any influence.
Baroness Cumberlege said “This person would be the golden thread, tying the disjointed system together in the interests of those who matter most”.
The system whereby hospitals have conducted their own independent reviews of adverse events has failed patients consistently over the years. The voice of the patient is often silent in such investigations where they should be at the centre of the investigation and have full access to all information obtained. As was recognised in the report patients often know when something has gone wrong and their voices have been ignored. She said “Their experience must no longer be considered anecdotal and weighted least in the hierarchy of evidence-based medicine”.
Patient’s told Baroness Cumberlege stories familiar to many claimant lawyers. They complained of lack of information to enable them to make informed choices, the struggle to be heard and believed, the sense of abandonment and loss of confidence in the medical profession which can have a profound effect on the ability to have future treatment. There were complaints of inaccurate or altered patient records another theme regularly heard by lawyers who act for claimants. She recognised that many patients had lost their health their jobs, their families and their futures.
Where new treatments, drugs or products are being introduced this must be done safely. Any regulation must be impartial and fair to all. It is also important that there is independent continued surveillance and reporting of adverse consequences on a national scale to pick up as early as possible any adverse consequences not anticipated or identified. Adverse consequences can be reported with patient details redacted if necessary. Baroness Cumberlege states “In our view openness and transparency should be a statutory requirement for adverse event reporting in the UK”.
There has been a longstanding problem in the UK bringing litigation against manufacturers who have enormous financial resources. This report recognises that steps must be taken to ensure that where there is a new medical device or development this must be carefully and independently scrutinised to prevent harm occurring.
The report recognises that the MHRA has no involvement in the pre-market phase of medical device development and states that it should develop a proactive regulatory role for devices which must be as least as stringent as the new EU Medical Devices Regulations. There should be a register of all approved devices. Manufacturers should be required to apply to the MHRA before marketing their device. Marketing approval for devices should be a staged process and there will be power to remove a device from the Register.
Baroness Cumberlege has also recognised that some doctors may have financial and other links with pharmaceutical companies and that at present there is no register of clinicians’ financial and non-financial interests. She has advocated that such a register is set up. Patients should be able to access information on whether their clinician has a financial interest with a pharmaceutical company. There should be no inducements to initiate new treatments.
In Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board the Supreme Court recognised that patients were no longer passive recipients of medical care and that they must be involved in decisions about their own health care. To do so they require to have information to enable them to exercise an informed choice. Patients must be a central part of any new system introduced and should have access to information on adverse events identified with any new product/drug to enable them to make informed decisions on their healthcare. It is clear that regulation cannot be left in the hands of manufacturers or Health Boards to determine the safety of a product or to regulate the occurrence of adverse consequences.
The report is titled “First Do No Harm” but as Baroness Cumberlege says in the report the next step is “Do Some Good”.
Read more in Marion Scott’s fantastic article in the Sunday Post.
First published on Lauren Sutherland QC‘s blog on 12th July 2020 here.
[1] This test was withdrawn from the market in the 1970’s and was thought to be associated with birth defects and miscarriages
[2] This is an effective anti-epileptic drug which causes physical malformations, autism and developmental delay in many children when it is taken by their mothers during pregnancy
[3] Used in the surgical repair if pelvic organ prolapse and to manage stress urinary incontinence
Back
Euan Scott
Euan Scott called to the Bar in 2020 having worked in one of Scotland’s leading litigation firms.
He has a broad civil practice with a particular focus on medical and professional negligence, and commercial dispute resolution (with his experience concentrating on commercial contract disputes, property disputes, contentious construction and insurance).
He also has an interest in media law and insolvency issues and has extensive experience of public inquiries.
Euan was appointed as Standing Junior Counsel to the Scottish Government in 2022
Back
Ampersand QC speaking at Nursing Homes Claims PEOPIL’s webinar
Ampersand’s Lauren Sutherland QC will be one of 3 speakers on PEOPIL’s 5th Webinar on Zoom discussing the very topical issue of Nursing Homes Claims. The other speakers are Ian Blenkharn, Microbiologist and Sean Domnick, Attorney at Domnick Cunningham and Whalen.
Covering areas such as COVID-19 infections, infection prevention, treatment and clinical skills this is sure to be a very popular event.
More details on topics and on how to join are in the flyer here. The session takes place on 11th June 2020, at 3pm (UK time)
Back
Alan McNab and others v Greater Glasgow Health Board [2020] CSOH 53
The pursuers were relatives of the late Ms McNab. They alleged clinical negligence on the part of a consultant urological surgeon employed by the defenders. Quantum was agreed between the parties. A proof proceeded in relation to negligence and some disputed aspects of causation. The proof was heard over five days. On 28 May 2020, Lady Carmichael granted decree of absolvitor.
The issues
The deceased died as a result of multi-organ failure secondary to sepsis. The sepsis was caused by a right rigid ureteroscopy procedure carried out by the defenders’ consultant urological surgeon, Ms Seaward. No ureteric stone was found, during the ureteroscopy. There is a small risk of sepsis with ureteroscopies.
The pursuers claimed that there had been a failure by Ms Seaward to obtain the deceased’s informed consent to the procedure, and that the deceased would not have given consent if fully informed. They also claimed that Ms Seaward failed to confirm the continued presence of a ureteric stone by further imaging prior to performing the procedure, and that in the absence of such imaging she should have cancelled the procedure. They claimed that she had a duty to check the deceased’s urine cultures before proceeding.
Lady Carmichael found on the evidence that the deceased’s previous episode of postoperative urosepsis did not mean that she was at an increased risk of sepsis. She found on the evidence that the deceased’s informed consent to the procedure was obtained, despite the lack of a full contemporaneous record.
In relation to the alleged failures to confirm the presence of the stone by imaging and to cancel the procedure, Lady Carmichael heard competing evidence from the pursuers’ expert Mr Baird and from the defenders’ expert Professor McClinton. She accepted Professor McClinton’s evidence that a reasonable body of clinicians would have acted as Ms Seaward did in the circumstances, and that there was a logical basis to proceed to a ureteroscopy. That procedure would demonstrate conclusively whether there was a stone present, in the context of a patient still complaining of pain which she described as the same she had experienced previously from a stone.
The final case based on a failure to obtain urine cultures also failed. There was no case on causation as to what the outcome would have been, had such urine cultures been obtained. Further, Lady Carmichael accepted Professor McClinton’s evidence that there was a practice at the material time of carrying out a dipstick test of urine on the morning of the procedure, as occurred in the deceased’s case.
Representation
Una Doherty Q.C. appeared for the defenders. Geoff Clarke Q.C. and Ranald Macpherson, Advocate, appeared for the pursuers.
Opinion of Lady Carmichael can be viewed here.
Back
Ampersand welcomes Jenny Nicholson back to practice
Ampersand is delighted to advise that Jenny Nicholson has returned to practice, following maternity leave, on 1 June 2020.
“A strong negotiator who has achieved fantastic results for clients” (Legal 500 2020 edition), she acts for both pursuers and defenders in a wide range of civil litigation and is ranked band 1 for personal injury and clinical negligence.
She was shortlisted by the Legal 500 for Scottish Junior Advocate of the Year (2020) and is known for her diligence, eye for detail and approachable yet tenacious manner.
She looks forward, with enthusiasm, to new instructions.
Back