This website works best using cookies, (learn more). If you continue to browse the site, we’ll assume you agree to the use of cookies.
Call us on
0370 1500 100
I am a solicitor in the Medical Product Liability and Medical Negligence team.
My team and I deal with national and international group actions in relation to defective medical devices and pharmaceuticals or sub-standard medical treatment.
I provide advice and pursue legal actions for the recovery of compensation for victims of defective medical products; I do not represent the manufacturers.
I have been involved in this sort of work since I qualified as a solicitor in 2008.
I tend to represent individuals, or groups of individuals, pursuing claims against multi-national pharmaceutical companies. Where harm has been done, I find it very satisfying to play my part in holding big business to account, and hopefully reducing the risk of the same harm happening again in the future.
Irwin Mitchell is one of the few firms in the UK with the expertise and resources to deal with the kind of case that I work on. From a professional point of view, I feel privileged to be working on the kind of technically challenging cases we are presented with.
I am lucky enough to live on the edge of the Peak District, so I like to get out there for a walk or a bike ride as often as I can. I play golf every now and then and try to read when I can.
“The information leak by Islington Council was a significant and far reaching failure. Custodians of personal data have a duty under the Data Protection Act 1998 to keep that information confidential. “The ICO has acted correctly and responsibly in imposing a £56,000 fine for this breach. “It is also possible that the price Islington Council pay will be greater than the fine as individuals affected by the breach may have a right to damages for their distress arising from the breach and a related right of action in ‘misuse of private information’. “The right to recover damages for distress following data breaches is a fairly new development, which was only fully established following the 2015 cases of Vidal Hall v Google and TLT and others v Secretary of State. “Whilst the Information Commissioner is responsible to impose fines on those responsible for breaches, it has no power to award damages to individuals for distress. Those cases must be pursued in through the Courts.”
“Decisions to recall products, are not taken lightly and anyone who owns a Beko dryer with a recalled serial number should cease using it and contact the manufacturer as soon as possible. “We’ve seen first-hand the devastating injuries that can be caused by defective products and they can be life-changing for families so it is imperative that safety investigations identify how this fault got through the testing process. “Product recalls protect consumers from risks by removing potentially dangerous products from the domestic environment. It is good news that Beko has identified safety risks and is taking steps to protect consumers. This is an important issue that cannot be overlooked “
“This modification is long overdue, and it is frankly unacceptable that Whirlpool have taken so long to get to this point. “The safety notice was first issued in November 2015. Since then, the owners of these dryers have been specifically assured by the manufacturer, that they are safe to use provided they are not left unattended. “However, that seems to assume that the Whirlpool customers will be able to safely deal with an electrical fire should it develop. This advice potentially increased the risk for consumers by placing them in harm’s way. “Product recalls protect consumers from risks by removing potentially dangerous products from the domestic environment. Whirlpool should have recalled and replaced these products from the outset and compensated their customers for the inconvenience associated with that. Instead, they have magnified the risk with irresponsible advice and no recall has been issued. “Whilst it is good news that Whirlpool have now modified their advice, there are clearly lessons to be learned from their actions. We hope in future that manufacturers of products with identified safety risks will take the necessary steps to protect consumers promptly and effectively.”
“Hoverboards are often bought as a present and are commonly used inside because they cannot be legally used on public land – this puts peoples’ homes at immediate risk. “JoAnn suffered serious burns on her arm, and the family is lucky to not have had their home destroyed in a fire from the explosion. We have seen hoverboard cases where families have been left without a home and possessions after they have been destroyed. “The majority of manufacturers and retailers care about the safety of their products and take a keen interest in securing the high standards their reputations depend upon. But the huge range of consumer products available in today’s market place inevitably means that some products are less safe than others, especially given the number of counterfeit products being sold. “Sometimes it can be really hard to tell the difference between counterfeit products and genuine items. Buying a fake electrical product can pose a serious safety threat, from leaking batteries to products overheating and exploding. “We provide tips for consumers on what to look for when they’re buying electrical goods, particularly on what to check for look for when buying. As we have seen in JoAnn’s case, even reputable retailers can find themselves, perhaps unwittingly, with defective products on their shelves.
Request a call back
Enter your details below and we'll call you back, at a time of your choice.