On 11 May 2022 the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (Lord Boyd, Sir Richard McLaughlin and Professor Graham Zellick QC) handed down their decision in Bartram & Howe v Chief Constable of British Transport Police.

The complaints’ case was that surveillance carried out on them during a misconduct investigation by British Transport Police (BTP) ought to have been authorised under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and breached their Article 8 ECHR rights.

James Berry represented BTP, who argued that RIPA did not apply to surveillance for the purpose of internal (non-criminal) misconduct investigations and that the IPT lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

The IPT appointed Counsel to the Tribunal who argued that RIPA did apply and that the IPT’s seminal case of C v The Police did not apply on the facts of case. C concerned ‘medical surveillance’ of a former officer suspected of exaggerating his pension claim, which the IPT decided fell outside RIPA and its jurisdiction.

The IPT accepted James’ arguments, applied the case of C v The Police to surveillance in (non-criminal) police misconduct investigations, and held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case.

James Berry advises public authorities including police forces on surveillance in criminal and misconduct investigations and represents parties in proceedings before the IPT and related civil litigation.

James was instructed by David Riddle of Simons Muirhead Burton.

Eloise Power co-edits and co-authors , Lessons from Medicolegal Cases in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, with Swati Jha, a leading urogynaecologist. Published by Cambridge University Press, this book aims at improving this clinical practice by increasing awareness of past cases and their implications.

Eloise is the author of detailed legal commentaries throughout the book, together with a chapter giving an overview of clinical negligence law.

Find out more about Eloise’s clinical negligence practice here.

To find out more information and purchase Lessons from Medicolegal Cases in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, click here.

Anthony Haycroft successfully defended a dentist before a Professional Conduct Committee of the General Dental Council. The case involved various alleged clinical failings in respect of a single patient. The dentist admitted a single failing and the PCC accepted her evidence and found her admitted allegation proven but no others. Although the admitted failing was far below standard, the PCC accepted the defence submissions that following the case of Calhaem there was no misconduct in the case either on public protection grounds or public interest grounds. As a result the case concluded with no action being taken at all upon the dentist’s registration.

Anthony Haycroft was instructed by Stephen Hooper of Clyde & Co, through Susan Willet of MDDUS and the defence expert was Dr Sharon Caro.

 R. (on the application of Ogunmuyiwa) v Army Board of the Defence Council & Anor

The claim concerned a service complaint brought by a private soldier against his commanding officer. In a wide ranging and significant judgment Ellenbogen J found that the decision of the Army Board of the Defence Council dealing with the service complaint was significantly flawed in a multitude of ways. The claim succeeded on all six grounds of judicial review. The judgment is the first in many years to deal with the service complaints process and the first addressing the Armed Forces (Service Complaints) Regulations 2015.

Please see the judgment here.

Eloise Power speaks at the AvMA Annual Conference 2022 in Leeds on Medical Devices and Product Liability.

Eloise has a strong practice in clinical negligence and product liability. Her clinical negligence practice encompasses a wide range of cases including amputations, spinal injury, gynaecological/obstetric work, delayed diagnosis and orthopaedic matters. She is also presently instructed in a number of high-profile product liability cases including the trans-vaginal mesh litigation. Eloise is “highly regarded for her vast experience and enviable catalogue of high-profile, high-value cases” (Chambers & Partners).

Read more about Eloise’s practice here.

We are delighted to win Best Work/Life Balance at The Legal Cheek Awards 2022.

We are also delighted to have been shortlisted for the following categories:

• Best Chambers for Training 2022
• Best Chambers for Quality of Work 2022
• Best Chambers for Colleague Supportiveness 2022
• Best Chambers for Facilities 2022
• Best Chambers for Legal Tech 2022
• The Legal Cheek Chambers of the Year 2022

Congratulations to all those who won and thank you to Alex and his team for their research.

Please see the full list of this year’s Chambers shortlists here.

We have won 28 awards since 2016.

To discuss how we can put this award winning approach into practice for the benefit of you and your clients, please contact our clerking or client care teams on 020 7427 5000.

We are proud to announce that Sophia Roper QC and Claire Watson QC were elevated to silk on Monday, the 21st of March 2022, in sunny Westminster. They were accompanied by family, friends, and colleagues – including our very own Lee Johnson, Senior Clerk, and Tom O’Connor, Clerking Team Leader.

Many thanks to all those involved in the silk application process.

The unsuccessful bidder was seeking to persuade the Court that the assessment and marking of the winning and losing bids was incorrect and in breach of the contracting authority’s obligations under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, and that outcome of the tendering process was wrong as a result. This is believed to be the first time that the procurement of an orthodontic contract for Personal Dental Services has been analysed in a trial setting. Judgment has been reserved.

The Court considered the status of the Court of Appeal’s well known decision in Bailey in 2008.

Read the full judgment here.

John was instructed by Lester Aldridge LLP for the the Applicant.

Angus was instructed by Hill Dickinson LLP for the Respondent.

Neil Davy completes the ‘25 for 25’ Challenge, having successfully undertaken a significant number of hours of pro bono work.

Described as an “extraordinary barrister with an incredible mind” by Chambers & Partners, he specialises in healthcare related work, particularly medical and dental negligence claims. He has particular expertise in legally or technically complex and unusual cases requiring exceptionally detailed analysis or lateral thinking.

Read more about his practice here.