Who? James Drydale, medical negligence partner, Taylor Emmet, Sheffield.

Why is he in the news? Successfully represented the claimant, a child, in the Supreme Court, in an appeal concerning whether a child can claim compensation for earnings lost because their life expectancy was shortened by negligence. 

Thoughts on the case: ‘This is a fairness issue primarily. Why should children be in a worse position than adults when it comes to receiving damages for the years of their life they should have enjoyed? If you were the victim of negligence, and that negligence shortened your life, then I would anticipate that you would consider that amends should be made for those lost years. 

‘The case of Croke v Wiseman (1981) was outdated and unfair. This case puts right a historic injustice and finally puts children’s rights at the same level as those of adults. 

‘My client’s family have shown great courage in pursuing her case all the way to the Supreme Court. It has certainly not been plain sailing. They are delighted with the outcome.’

Dealing with the media: ‘I was a little surprised at how much interest in the case there was. In dealing with the media, I was pleased to explain the circumstances of the case, its importance and what it may mean for future cases. Understandably, but disappointingly, some of the media angle has been on the extra cost to the NHS. However, surely the focus should be on the fact that this case promotes fairness for children and that patient safety is so important.’ 

Why become a lawyer? ‘I read history as an undergraduate and have always been interested in people’s stories. I enjoy helping people with their problems and finding fair solutions. My clients often regard their court case as something of a daunting “David v Goliath” battle. It is always great to find a way to win to help people achieve justice.’ 

Career high: ‘Definitely this case. My client has injuries of maximum severity. This case will make a difference not only to her but many other children who suffer brain injuries as a result of negligence.’ 

Career low: ‘In a recent cerebral palsy case, all of the requirements for legal aid under LASPO in terms of my client’s injuries and the circumstances in which he sustained them, were fulfilled. However, legal aid was refused on the basis that it was possible for us to obtain ATE insurance. Any clinical negligence department should be able to obtain ATE insurance even in birth injury cases, but is it right that injured children should have to pay for an ATE premium in these circumstances?’ 

Topics