The Legal 500

Hempsons

HEMPSONS HOUSE, 40 VILLIERS STREET, LONDON, WC2N 6NJ, ENGLAND
Tel:
Work 020 7839 0278
Fax:
Fax 020 7839 8212
DX:
138411 CHARING CROSS-1
Email:
Web:
www.hempsons.co.uk

Bertie Leigh

Tel:
Work 020 7484 7513
Email:
Hempsons

Work Department

Healthcare

Position

Senior partner; specialises in medical negligence, other professional negligence, hospital litigation, institutions specifically concerned with obstetrics, anaesthetics and paediatrics; special interest in medical ethics, on which he writes articles and lectures.

Career

Articled Hempsons; qualified 1976; partner Hempsons 1977. Involved in many of the leading medical cases over the last 30 years, including the leading res ipsa loquitur cases of Saunders v Leeds HA (1985 1 29 FJ 25) and Lindsay v Mid Western Health Board (1992); several of the cases concerned with failed sterilisation and contraception, including Gold v Haringey HA 1987 3 WLR 649 (CA); several of the leading quantum actions including Thomas v Brighton HA 1998 (HL); numerous actions involving claims brought by brain-damaged babies, including Barker v Nugent 1987; Stockdale v Nicholls MLR 1992, Robertson v Nottingham HA, (1994) (CA), and various actions involving spinal surgery, including De Freitas v O’Brien (1993). Several cases involving non-consensual LSCS (including MB (CA)), the mixed up IVF twins in Leeds (2002); he conducted the first two successful costs capping applications in group actions in the Nationwide Retained Organs case and the Ledward rape allegations (2003); the duty of care of paediatricians to parents JD v East Berkshire Health Authority (HL 2005). Publications of note: chapters in Dewhurst’s ‘Obstetrics and Gynaecology’ and Roberton and Rennie’s ‘Neonatology’.

Member

President Medico-Legal Society (2006-08); chairman NCEPOD (National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death 2008 to date); Hon FRCPCH (Fellow of the Royal College of Paediatrics & Child Health 1997); FRCOG ad eundem (Fellow of the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2003); governor City Lit (2005 to date); trustee CORE (2005 to date); trustee Save the Baby Fund (2008) to date).

Education

St Christopher School, Letchworth; University of East Anglia.

Back to index

Legal Developments worldwide

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to
  • Update on EU Sanctions against Russia

    On 6 December 2014, Council Regulation (EU) No 1290/2014 entered into force. This regulation is the latest in a series of regulations regarding "sectoral sanctions" against Russia.
  • Slovakia: Checkmate? New law regulates protection of employees when blowing the whistle

    So far, in Slovakia there has not been in force any regulation specifically addressing whistleblowing situations in which employees report wrongdoings, such as the commission of a crime which they learnt about in connection with the performance of their employment, work or function. Certain partial aspects related to whistleblowing have been regulated by the country's data protection, criminal and labour laws. read more
  • Croatia: A look at the Strategic Investment Projects Act One Year after Implementation

    Croatia's sixth consecutive year of recession
  • AT: Transparency International – Release of 20th annual Corruption Perceptions Index

    On 3 December 2014, Transparency International, the leading civil society organisation fighting corruption worldwide, released its 20th annual Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). The index draws on surveys covering the views of business people, provides expert assessments, and ranks 175 countries by the perceived levels of corruption in their public sectors. The scale ranges from 0 (perceived to be highly corrupt) to 100 (perceived to be very clean). The CPI can be found under the following link .  read more...
  • Review of the Constitutional Court Decision on the Cancellation of Article 42/1 (C) of Law No. 556

    Introduction
  • Transfer and Granting of Rights under Turkish Petroleum Law: Freedom of Contract versus Regulatory R

    Especially after the drop in oil prices the companies that are in early stage of their investments have begun to get position aiming to turn into an advantageous investment and started to look to what extent the regulations allow them to transfer and grant their rights under Turkish Petroleum Law. This may be deemed also as an exit strategy for some from operational perspective as it parallels with the tendency around the world and has direct relation with oil prices. 
  • Contracting the Petroleum Operations under Turkish Petroleum Law: Scope and Limits of Liability on P

    As exception to liberty of contracting and unlike a number of other industries, Turkey's petroleum industry imposes certain obligations to petroleum right owners in contracting the conduct of the petroleum operations.  At the first glance this seems that it aims to strengthen the management of hazards by enhancing the safety however the liability imposed to petroleum right owners in case of contracting the operations still remains unclear in terms of limitation.
  • Liabilities of Primary Employer and Subcontractors in case of a Collusive Contract

    Growing economy and competitive environment in Turkey has been leading companies to seek more profitable ways to conduct their business. Therefore companies have chosen to engage in subcontracts for the purpose of reducing their costs. Yet, to serve such purpose, at some point companies have started utilizing subcontracts to limit employees' entitlements through collusive contracts. Labor Law numbered 4857 (the " Labor Law ") and Bylaw on Subcontractor dated September 27, 2008 (the " Bylaw ") regulate which services or works may be subcontracted and strictly prohibit collusive contracts. According to Article 2/7 of the Labor Law, a collusive subcontract is considered null and void. Such nullity of subcontract automatically results in primary employers being redefined as main and sole employers of employees assigned to subcontracted work. Consequently, primary employers are solely responsible for employees' rights arising from subcontracted works and technically, primary employers would not have the option to recourse to subcontractors in order to claim any compensation due to their sole responsibility.
  • Boundaries of the Turkish Competition Authority’s Investigative Powers

    Boundaries of the Turkish Competition Authority's Investigative Powers: Case Handlers vs. Personal Property
  • Potential Consequences of Acquisitions of Minority Shareholdings under Turkish Competition Law

    The acquisition of a minority shareholding may come under the Turkish Competition Authority's (" Authority ") scrutiny in two ways, mainly: 1) it may result in de facto or de jure sole or joint control, depending on the rights possessed by the minority shareholders and/or shareholding structures and past voting patterns; and 2) it may not result in control but in cross-shareholding structures amongst competitors in a concentrated market which may raise questions about coordinated effects. This article discusses the circumstances under which the abovementioned consequences may arise under Turkish competition law with references to the relevant legislation and the most noteworthy cases in this regard.