Charles Bagot KC

Areas of expertise

• Clinical negligence & personal injury
  • Clinical negligence

    Clinical negligence

    Charles is highly rated for his forensic skills, strong negotiating and persuasive advocacy in sensitive and complex cases. His extensive clinical negligence practice for Claimants and Defendants is in high value and complex claims in a wide range of clinical fields, particularly those resulting in fatalities, maximum severity brain and spinal consequences, birth injuries, psychiatric injury/ secondary victims, amputations and loss of sight. He advises and represents Claimants and Defendants domestically and also internationally in numerous jurisdictions. He is a successful appellate advocate including in the Court of Appeal and the UK Supreme Court (most recently in the landmark Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust secondary victim Supreme Court decision, described by Professor Dominic Regan as “the Tort case of the century.”).

    Example reported cases:

    • Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS (and other conjoined appeals) [2024] UKSC 1 (judgment here): acted for all 3 successful Defendants in this landmark case in which the UK Supreme Court by a 6-1 majority (Lord Burrows dissenting) dismissed the Claimants’ conjoined appeals against the strike out of their psychiatric injury claims from witnessing the death of close relatives from the Defendants’ alleged (or admitted) clinical negligence. Charles was the only Defendant Counsel to have appeared at every stage of the case: 1st instance: [2019] EWHC 2893 (QB); [2020] PIQR P5; 1st appeal: [2020] EWHC 1415 (QB); [2020] PIQR P19; 2nd appeal (Court of Appeal): [2022] EWCA Civ 12; [2023] QB 149; 3rd appeal (Supreme Court): [2024] UKSC 1.

    • Paling v Sherwood Forest NHS [2021] EWHC 3266 (QB): acted for Defendant in application in which the Court accepted that it had jurisdiction to stay a child’s clinical negligence claim in default of the Claimant and his parents agreeing to undergo genetic testing to see if there was an identifiable genetic cause for his symptoms which he alleged were caused by a brain injury resulting from the Defendant’s negligence in failing to diagnose and treat neonatal hypoglycaemia. On the facts, the Court declined to order a stay holding that the effect of testing on the Claimant and his parents would be significant and outweighed the potential benefit to the Defendant.
    • Azam v University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust [2020] EWHC 3384 (QB): successfully acted for the Respondent/ Claimant in opposing an appeal against an exercise of discretion to permit a clinical negligence claim to proceed 18 years out of time. Was the fact that the allegedly negligent surgeon had died since the expiry of the primary limitation period, “the epitome of prejudice” meaning the case should not have been allowed to proceed? No, held Saini J, as the Trust’s failure to make good the assertion of prejudice by any evidence at the Limitation trial meant that the trial Judge had been entitled to find that there was no significant real prejudice in defending the claim by the passage of time. The appeal was dismissed. The judgment can be found here.
    • Price v Cwm Taf University Health Board [2019] EWHC 938 (QB):  successfully acted for NHS Wales (leading Vanessa McKinlay) in opposing an appeal touching on a range of issues relevant to clinical negligence and civil procedure. Birss J dismissed the Claimant’s appeal against the judgment of HHJ Petts itself dismissing the Claimant’s claim for a large seven-figure sum in damages arising out of arthroscopic treatment and a subsequent partial-knee replacement from which there had been a poor but (as it was upheld on appeal) non-negligent outcome. It also provides useful guidance for those considering appeals on findings of fact.  A copy of the judgment can be found here.
    • Wild v Southend Hospitals NHS Trust [2016] PIQR P3; [2014] EWHC 4053: successful at trial in secondary victim claim arising out of death in utero and stillbirth; the first reported application of Taylor v Novo in the clinical negligence context.
    • Tanner v Dr Sarkar (MPS) [2016] 12 WLUK 259: successful defence at trial in the first reported secondary victim claim brought by a child who, aged 5 (16 at trial) witnessed death of her brother in ambulance due to failure to diagnose sepsis.
    • Taylor v A.Novo (UK) Ltd [2014] QB 150; [2013] Med LR 100; [2013] EWCA Civ 194: successful appeal to the Court of Appeal in novel secondary victim claim (led by Charles Cory-Wright QC), a decision which was held to be correctly decided by the Supreme Court and central to its decision in Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust in 2024.
  • Personal injury

    Personal injury

    Charles won Personal Injury Silk of the Year at the 2023 Legal 500 Bar Awards. He is highly rated for his forensic skills, strong negotiating and persuasive advocacy in sensitive and complex cases. He acts for both Claimants and Defendants, in high value claims, usually arising from catastrophic brain injuries, spinal fractures and amputations. He also has a particular specialism in fatal accident claims, as well as psychiatric injury and secondary victim litigation. He is a successful appellate advocate including in the Court of Appeal and the UK Supreme Court (most recently in the landmark Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust secondary victim Supreme Court decision, described by Professor Dominic Regan as “the Tort case of the century.”).

    His cases often have an international element such as incidents abroad or Claimants based abroad. He advises and represents Claimants and Defendants internationally in numerous overseas jurisdictions and in appeals to the UK Privy Council.

    He is known for his expertise in cases involving allegations of exaggeration and dishonesty. He also advises insurers on coverage and policy interpretation issues arising in injury claims.

    Recent Work and reported decisions:

    • Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS (and other conjoined appeals) [2024] UKSC 1 (judgment here): acted for all 3 successful Defendants in this landmark case in which the UK Supreme Court by a 6-1 majority (Lord Burrows dissenting) dismissed the Claimants’ conjoined appeals against the strike out of their psychiatric injury claims from witnessing the death of close relatives from the Defendants’ alleged (or admitted) clinical negligence. Charles was the only Defendant Counsel to have appeared at every stage of the case: 1st instance: [2019] EWHC 2893 (QB); [2020] PIQR P5; 1st appeal: [2020] EWHC 1415 (QB); [2020] PIQR P19; 2nd appeal (Court of Appeal): [2022] EWCA Civ 12; [2023] QB 149; 3rd appeal (Supreme Court): [2024] UKSC 1.
    • GJC v Walker [2024] EWHC 182 (KB): an example of an instruction in one of numerous severe brain injury claims. This one was ultimately settled and, in a written judgment, approved by the Court at £4.75m.
    • Re: Jehangir (Deceased): instructed in multiple claims arising from road accident causing 6 fatalities and several other serious injuries in Birmingham underpass; involves issues of illegality (drug use and criminality): https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/dec/17/six-dead-in-birmingham-crash.
    • Re: Neata: claim pleaded at £35 million for brain injury. Novel issues arise around whether standard PI discount rate should be departed from as Claimant has returned to live in Romania.
    • Spence-Green v Westfield & Securitas: acting for security firm in claim by a trainee doctor who was paralysed when a man who had leapt from the Westfield atrium landed on her: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7605495/Woman-paralysed-man-leapt-shopping-centre-floor-comforted-fact-saved-life.html
    • Hoff (a child) v Multiple Defendants: acted for the manufacturer of a granite picnic table which collapsed onto a 6-year-old French boy in a school playground, in Richmond, resulting in a catastrophic brain injury. Complex litigation involving multiple parties including the school, local authority, architects and project managers for the playground project, and the installers of the table.
    • Mrs B v Highways England: acted for Claimant, a young woman whose upper arm had to be amputated just below the shoulder, following injuries in a road accident, when her car turned over after hitting a flooded area on a motorway. Complex issues arose about whether C should undergo osseo-integration surgery (metal implant into bone). Settled for £3.33m gross.
    • Paling v Sherwood Forest NHS [2021] EWHC 3266 (QB): novel case concerning whether the Court can order a Claimant to undergo genetic testing.
    • Winter v Roberts: acted for insurers in medically complex lower limb amputation claim brought by young man. Settled for £4.45m.
    • Azam v University Hospital Birmingham NHSFT [2020] EWHC 3384 (QB): acted for Claimant- successful on appeal in limitation case where the claim was 18 years out of time and a key Defendant witness had died.
    • DP v Topmark Claims Management Ltd [2020] UKUT 0106 (AAC): the first time the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme had been considered at an appellate level. It gave guidance on the scope of the scheme, as well as wider points on the nature of an appeal before the First Tier Tribunal and on statutory interpretation. Judgment here.
    • JX MX (Protected party): Defended claim by teenage girl with locked-in syndrome who communicated by blinking and eye-gaze technology; 8 figure settlement with PPO achieved shortly before trial.
    • Denker v Lufthansa: Led Jasmine Murphy, acting for an airline defending a claim for £7m by a mature male model for loss of income following an accident at Munich Airport. Claimant later accepted an offer, out of time, for less than 4% of the value of the claim sought, paying a substantial contribution to Lufthansa’s costs.
  • Fraud

    Fraud

    Charles is sought after by insurers for cases where fraud and exaggeration are suspected in high value injury and clinical negligence claims. They value his forensic approach to identifying the issues, providing and seeing through a clear strategy on achieving the best outcome.

    Charles was successful in one of the first Court of Appeal cases to question whether a dishonest Claimant should recover any damages at all, where a significant part of the claim was dishonest, long before such a power gained statutory force in Section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015: Molloy v Shell UK Ltd. [2001] EWCA Civ 1272, [2002] PIQR P7.

    Since then, he has been instructed in numerous such claims, securing favourable outcomes for insurers in Court or at JSMs.

    Charles is also Editor of the Chapter in Kemp & Kemp dealing with Fraudulent and Dishonest Claimants.

    Recent Work

    • CF v LT NHS Trust
      Seven figure claim based on allegations of unremitting pain and disability from negligently performed abdominal surgery. Charles advised on appropriate investigations into the Claimant’s DWP records and a case strategy maximising the impact of surveillance showing the Claimant driving, shopping and throwing a ball for her dog. A compromise was ultimately reached whereby the Claimant accepted a low offer two years out-of-time, paying the Trust a substantial sum in costs.
    • Burke v Hersant (Caymans)
      Charles advised the Defendant’s insurers in this injury case pleaded at CI$6m and was briefed for trial in the Cayman Islands. Credibility issues arose. The Plaintiff claimed significant disability and incapacity but was found to have completed a 1 mile charity swim and was filmed carrying out normal day-to-day activities. The claim was compromised shortly before trial for around 5% of the amount originally sought.
    • LB v Local Authority
      A Claimant who alleged severe consequences from a hand injury had bragged on social media about his forthcoming boxing matches and training exploits. Charles’ strategy to amend the Defence pleading conscious exaggeration and making an application for further disclosure, resulted in the claim being struck out for non-compliance. A fully enforceable costs order was made in his client’s favour.
    • ABC v Matalan
      Charles’ carefully drafted CPR 18 Requests for Information resulted in answers wholly inconsistent with the Claimant’s presentation to the DWP in benefits claims and on surveillance. At a subsequent JSM a favourable settlement was reached.
  • Product liability

    Product liability

    Charles has extensive experience in product liability cases arising out of fatalities and serious injuries for both Claimants and Defendants. Further details can be found under ‘Personal Injury’. He also advises insurers on coverage and policy interpretation issues arising in this area.

    Recent work

    • JM v Leading Watersports Manufacturer
      Defending product liability claim on behalf of the world’s leading watersports equipment manufacturer. Claim by a kite surfer who sustained multiple spinal fractures when he struck the sea bed after performing a freestyle stunt. He alleged a product defect. Charles represented the company at a pre-action negotiation and a confidential settlement was reached.
    • BCC v Geesink Norba
      Defending product liability claim involving technical engineering evidence and contractual issues  for worldwide manufacturer of refuse vehicles. Sued by City Council which sought recovery of damages paid to an employee who had been paralysed when he was crushed by mechanism which was alleged to have operated unexpectedly. Claimed at £1 million + and settled for £365,000 including costs. Opponent was leading PI silk.
    • Teall v Inztec & 2 others Defending product liability claim by lorry driver struck by a large roller shutter door which fell from its mountings resulting in a below knee amputation of his leg. Acting for occupier of building. At JSM, secured settlement in which Charles’ client did not have to pay any damages or costs and co-Defendant paid entirety of Claimant’s substantial damages and costs.
  • Inquests & inquiries

    Inquests & inquiries

    Charles has been a specialist injury and clinical negligence barrister for over 20 years and, since the start of his practice, he has been instructed for interested parties in Coroner’s inquests of all types.

    He has drafted written submissions/ responses, appeared as advocate before (and sat on/ chaired) a range of different panels, tribunals, inquiries and committees.

    Examples of his experience in the inquest field include:

    • A 5 day jury inquest into the death in custody of an asylum seeker at an immigration detention centre run by a private contractor. The death was highly sensitive and provoked a serious riot causing extensive damage to the centre;
    • A 3 day inquest into the death of a motorcycle racer at a major racetrack, when a mock-emergency drill led to a fatal collision between the motorcyclist and an emergency vehicle, at the conclusion of a race;
    • Inquests concerning the provision of medical treatment, such as an inquest into the sudden death of a toddler, 6 hours after her arrival in Accident and Emergency, from undiagnosed myocarditis. Acting for the bereaved family.
    • Jury inquests into deaths at work (often multiple deaths in the same incident) including construction site accidents, falls from height, crane/ machinery collapses, collapse of excavations and asphyxiation;
    • Numerous inquests into fatal road traffic accidents.

    Other:

    • Chaired a panel for a sporting body investigating an allegation of assault by a spectator at a competition;
    • Charles has been a panel member of the Bar Disciplinary Tribunal since 2012 and a panel chair since 2018.
• International

  International

  Charles is instructed in an increasing amount of international injury litigation often involving cross-border issues. He has recently advised major international insurers in various high value injury and clinical negligence cases being litigated in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, the Bahamas and Gibraltar respectively.

  His UK litigated cases also often have an international dimension with current or recent instructions having cross-border issues involving a range of jurisdictions including the USA, Brazil, India, Poland, France, Bulgaria and Belgium. He also has experience acting as an expert witness on UK law for foreign courts and as an accredited mediator.

  Recent Work

  • At any one time, Charles has a series of ongoing instructions in high value and complex injury and clinical negligence claims ongoing for Defendants, their insurers and also Claimants/ Plaintiffs in a range of overseas jurisdictions. He also specialises in handling points of procedural law and coverage disputes, as well as expert witness work on UK law for foreign courts.
  • Grimm v David Copperfield: representing celebrity magician in defence of a seven-figure claim by a former employee arising out of a boating accident at a luxury resort in The Bahamas.
  • H v A (the Cayman Islands) Acting for insurers in a multi-million CI$ claim by a businesswoman injured in accident.
  • Igelski v Scamp (Gibraltar) Advising an employer’s liability insurers arising out of the death of a commercial diver whilst working on a vessel in Gibraltar harbour.
  • Burke v Hersant (Cayman Islands) Charles advised the Defendant’s insurers in this injury case pleaded at CI$6m and was briefed for trial in the Cayman Islands. Credibility issues arose. The claim was compromised shortly before trial for around 5% of the amount originally sought.
  • Farmer v Smith (Bahamas) Charles advised and drafted the skeleton argument for an application to set aside the extension of time to serve a writ long after its validity had expired. The Court granted the application, set aside the extension and struck out the case. The outcome was overturned by the Bahamas Court of Appeal. Charles was lead Counsel for the insurers in the application to the UK Privy Council.
  • Re Bullard (Bermuda): acted for a private hospital in Bermuda, arising out of a claim for the fatal consequences of a hospital acquired infection.
  • Expert witness on UK law for Dutch Court on various points of civil procedure, in high value construction dispute.
  • Expert witness on UK personal injury law for specialist immigration tribunal, concerning effect on ongoing injury claim if individual were to be deported from the UK to India.
  • AX WX (Protected party): $18m claim by student repatriated to the US following brain injury in UK RTA; led project involving US financial experts to evidence and advance argument that more favourable US discount rates should be used instead of UK rates, post discount rate change. Claim settled at 7 figures on basis of US rates.
  • Denker v Lufthansa: Led Jasmine Murphy, acting for a major European airline defending a claim for £7m by a mature male model for loss of income following an accident at Munich Airport. Claimant later accepted an offer, out of time, for less than 4% of the value of the claim sought, paying a substantial contribution to Lufthansa’s costs.
• Insurance coverage

  Insurance coverage

  Charles advises insurers on coverage and policy interpretation issues arising mainly in injury, clinical negligence and property damage claims. For instance:

  Examples of Work

  • DM v QBE Insurance & others – Charles acts (leading Tom Bell) for a catastrophically injured young man pursuing a claim under the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010. The Claimant was put in a headlock and partially strangled by a doorman resulting in a devastating stroke due to the dissection of the internal carotid artery. He now lacks mental capacity and will need lifelong care. The PL insurers for the doorman’s employer (now in liquidation) declined cover due to the purported failure to satisfy certain notification conditions. Following the entry of judgment against the doorman’s employer following a trial, the claim again the insurers is currently proceeding to trial on the 2010 Act claim.
  • He advised two major insurers as to whether a public, employer’s or road traffic liability policy should answer where various bus drivers had assaulted members of the public following road accidents.
  • Fire Damage: Charles advised on issues arising in a seven figure claim for consequential loss and business interruption arising from a HGV fire in a loading bay at a large supermarket.
  • Madonna Stage Collapse Litigation: Charles advised on various policy issues arising out of this incident, in Marseille, which resulted in a fatality, serious injuries and major consequential losses.
• Insurance funded disputes

  Insurance funded disputes

  Charles regularly acts in clinical negligence and personal injury claims involving insurers.  You can see details of his experience in the Clinical Negligence and Personal Injury sections of his profile.