Claire Watson KC

Clinical Negligence & Healthcare

experience & expertise

With increasing seniority and since talking Silk, Claire’s practice has concentrated on complex, high value claims involving serious medical conditions such as cerebral palsy, acquired brain injury, spinal injury, delayed diagnosis of cancer, obstetric and birth injuries. She also undertakes a broad range of related public law work encompassing judicial review challenges and human rights matters.

Claire is a skilled trial advocate and has been praised by those instructing her for her robust approach to settlement negotiations at round table meetings. Claire values a collaborative team approach to cases and firmly believes in working with solicitors, experts and lay clients to achieve the best possible outcome.  She has been consistently ranked as a leading barrister in the field of clinical negligence by the Legal Directories and has been described in the Legal 500 as “a measured and effective advocate, who is always astute and has an eye on the pragmatic points of a case” and Chambers & Partners note that “She fights tooth and nail for the clients.  Claire continues to impress with her sensible and sensitive approach, sound advice, incredible organisation and brilliance.”

cases & work of note

• Chinda v Cardiff & Vale University Health Board [2025] EWHC 2692(KB): Claire successfully defended an application to withdraw a Part 36 offer in a high value spinal injury claim.
• Prescott-Brann v (1) Chelsea & Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (2) Dr Koteeswaran [2024] EWHC 3314 (KB): Claire is instructed on behalf of the Second Defendant in a claim arising from the alleged failure to promptly diagnose and treat the Claimant’s stroke.
• EF v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2024] EWHC 3004 (Fam): Claire was instructed by the HFEA in this application for a declaration permitting the posthumous use of an embryo created with EF’s sperm and his late wife’s eggs in treatment with a surrogate. The court granted the application and held that Schedule 3 HFEA 1990 should be read down to introduce an implied discretion for the court to accept evidence of consent provided other than in writing where a failure to do so would result in a breach of Article 8.
• G v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2024] EWHC 2453 (Fam): The President of the Family Division refused to make a declaration permitting the mother of a woman who died from breast cancer to use her deceased daughter’s frozen eggs in treatment with a surrogate. The court held that G’s Article 8 rights were not engaged on the facts of the case and the court’s jurisdiction to intervene under the Human Rights Act did not arise.  Claire appeared on behalf of the HFEA.
• BGT v Window to the Womb & Ors (2024): Claire was instructed on behalf of the Claimant in a wrongful birth claim in which default judgment was entered following the Defendants’ failure to file an acknowledgement of service. The Defendants applied to set aside default judgment but the application was refused.  The First Defendant was granted permission to appeal on the ground that it had a real prospect of demonstrating that it had no legal liability to the Claimant but permission was refused on all other grounds.  The claim settled before the appeal was heard.
• AWC (A child and protected party) (2024): Claire represented the Defendant in this complex cerebral palsy claim valued at over £17m.
• MHE (A child and protected party by SE, her mother and Litigation Friend) v Wye Valley NHS Trust [2024] EWHC 25 (KB): Claire was instructed on behalf of the Defendant in this cerebral palsy claim, which proceeded on quantum only.
• Whittington Hospital NHS Trust v XX [2020] UKSC 14: Claire appeared on behalf of the successful Claimant in this high profile and ground breaking case, in which the Supreme Court upheld an award of damages for the cost of surrogacy (including commercial surrogacy in the USA) for the first time in clinical negligence proceedings. The Claimant had developed cervical cancer and was left infertile due to the negligent failure of the Defendant Hospital Trust to correctly report on a number of smear tests and biopsies.
• Simpson v Payne (September 2020): The Claimant alleged that the Defendant had provided her with negligent breast augmentation surgery that had left her unable to either work as a glamour model for seven months or ride her horses. Social media evidence was disclosed proving this to be untrue. Claire successfully argued that the Claimant had been fundamentally dishonest and the Defendant was permitted to enforce a costs order requiring the Claimant to pay the Defendant’s costs of the action.
• R (Johnson) v Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWHC 1143 (Admin) : Claire appeared on behalf of the Defendant Trust in a judicial review challenging the decision that the applicant was not ordinarily resident in the UK and was therefore liable to pay for NHS treatment. She successfully argued that the Claimant should not be granted interim relief on the basis that there was strong evidence that she was an ‘overseas visitor’ who had come to the UK for free cancer treatment.
• Barry v Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board (December 2018): Claire appeared on behalf of the Defendant in a claim arising from the timing and performance of a colonoscopy and polypectomy procedure. At a trial on liability and quantum, she successfully argued that the decision that the colonoscopy was non-urgent was not negligent, and that in any event there was not a sufficient causative link between the delay in surgery and the perforation the Defendant suffered.
• Mould v Randall (April 2017):Claire appeared on behalf of the Defendant in this case concerning an alleged delay in diagnosing a breast infection by a Claimant who had recently stopped breast feeding. Claire successfully defended the case to trial and the claim was dismissed with costs. This was a hugely significant case for the Defendant whose professional reputation was at stake
• Hopkins v Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board(March 2016): Claire appeared on behalf of the Defendant Health Board in a clinical negligence claim arising from the psychiatric assessment and treatment of the Deceased, who died by suicide. The claim involved complex issues of causation and contributory negligence. Claire successfully defended the claim at a trial on liability and causation.
• B v Royal Surrey County and East Surrey Hospitals(March 2015): Claire represented the Claimant in this complex obstetric negligence claim arising from the failure to identify and repair an unusual third-degree perineal tear sustained during childbirth. The claim involved difficult factual issues regarding the timing of the onset of the Claimant’s symptoms and was complicated by a dispute amongst the experts as to the mechanism of injury. Claire settled the claim on behalf of the Claimant on the first day of trial for £150,000.
• Thornton v Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board(November 2014): Claire was instructed on behalf of the Defendant in this clinical negligence claim in which it was alleged that there was a failure to diagnose and treat ischaemia of the hand. Following a  three-day trial in the High Court in Cardiff , the Trial Judge found for the Defendant and the claim was dismissed with costs.

recommendations

Claire is recommended by both legal directories for her Clinical Negligence practice.

“She is a measured and effective advocate, who is always astute and has an eye on the pragmatic points of a case.”
The Legal 500

“Claire is wonderful with clients and her advice is always thoughtful and well reasoned. She is particularly good in cases involving sensitive issues.”
Chambers & Partners

“She fights tooth and nail for the clients. Claire continues to impress, with her sensible and sensitive approach, sound advice, incredible organisation and brilliance.”
Chambers & Partners

“Claire is wonderful. In conferences with clients, she masks her intellect with a warm and empathetic approach, but she is focused and determined in pursuing the very best outcome in every case.”
Chambers and Partners

“Claire is so hard working and so well organised. She is so determined and committed to her work; it is always of exceptional quality. Claire is a fantastic advocate. Most of all, clients just love her”
Chambers and Partners

“Claire is very personable and approaches from a sensible perspective. She is reasonable and leaves lines of communication open. She is creative in her thinking and does her clients a great service.”
Chambers and Partners

“Very experienced, measured and thorough. Great with clients.”
The Legal 500

“Claire is great with clients. She is quick on her feet whether in court or in settlement meetings, adapting her style as required.”
Chambers & Partners

“Claire is a great strategist, she cuts to the chase and finds solutions. She is good with clients and very personable, and a persuasive advocate.”
The Legal 500

“Her advices are always comprehensive and practical. Claire has excellent rapport with the client and senior solicitors.”
 Chambers & Partners

“Claire is so good both on paper and on her feet. Her clarity of thought, analysis of the issues and strategic planning are brilliant.”
Chambers & Partners

“Claire is excellent. She is an incredibly impressive barrister and a good all-rounder.”
Chambers & Partners

“Claire has fantastic attention to detail and there is no better barrister in a tricky case.”
The Legal 500

“She is just a brilliant advocate.”
Chambers & Partners

“Always pays meticulous attention to detail.”
Chambers & Partners

“She’s client-focused, well organised and just so impressive.”
Chambers & Partners

“Claire always has a grasp of the detail of the case and a clear focus on the arguments to deploy to achieve the very best outcome.”
The Legal 500

“She’s razor-sharp and has great attention to detail.”
Chambers & Partners

“Her advocacy skills are excellent and she’s fearless in court.”
Chambers & Partners

“Very pragmatic and responsive.”
Chambers & Partners

“She is tenancious, driven and good at dealing with even the most complex cases with challenging clients. Thoughtful, thorough, pragmatic and calm throughout everything. She genuinely cares for clients and that shines in her demeanour and work.”
The Legal 500

“She’s empathetic with clients and is an innovative thinker. She’s excellent on complex cases.”
Chambers & Partners

‘A great tactician who stands her ground firmly yet courteously.’
The Legal 500

“Her advocacy skills are excellent.”
Chambers & Partners

“She has a practical, no-nonsense style, and the advice she gives is always sensible.”
The Legal 500

“She has fantastic attention to detail and picks up on things that previously you had not considered.”
The Legal 500

“Very down to earth, and easy to deal with.”
The Legal 500