The Legal 500

Twitter Logo Youtube Circle Icon LinkedIn Icon

Work 020 7822 1200
Fax 020 7822 1300

Bradley Martin

Work 020 7822 1223
2TG – 2 Temple Gardens (2TG – 2 Temple Gardens)


Bradley is a specialist clinical negligence barrister. His practice covers all aspects of clinical negligence for claimants and defendants, in particular brain damage, spinal injury, amputation and other high value claims. For a number of years he has been recommended as a leading clinical negligence Junior by Legal 500 and Chambers UK, who highlight in 2012 ‘a busy year advising the NHSLA on complex brain damage and spinal injury cases.’ Bradley has significant experience of product liability claims, including group litigation, and has undertaken personal injury work throughout his career. He is also active in professional regulation, having appeared before the professional conduct committees of the GMC, GDC, CIPFA and ICAEW. Significant cases include: Wentworth v Wiltshire County Council (1993). Myodil litigation for Glaxo; Dunthorne v Bentley (1996). Lariam cases for GPs; O’Mahony v Joliffe (1999); Jackson v Goodwood (1999); Barry v NHSLA (2002); The Royal Victoria Infirmary and Associated Hospitals NHS Trust v B (A Child) [2002] Lloyd’s Med LR 282 (CA); Reynolds v North Tyneside Health Authority [2002] Lloyd’s Med LR 459; P v T [2004] EWHC 1392 (QB Holland J); Lambeth BC v Thames Water Utilities (2006). Hydrogel breast implant claims for PIP (2007); Bailey v Northfield (2009); Nicholas v Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust [2012] EWHC 591 (QB Wilkinson QC); R v The Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust [2012] EWHC 492 (QB McCombe J).


Called 1990; Lincoln’s Inn; research assistant of medical law at University of Toronto 1988; tutor in tort law at University of Leicester 1990; barrister in private practice.




City of London School; Watford Grammar School; University of Leicester (1987 LLB Hons 2(1)); University of Toronto.


Guitar, uke, bluegrass banjo, popular music, scuba diving.

London Bar

Clinical negligence

Within: Clinical negligence – Leading juniors

Bradley Martin - 2TG – 2 Temple GardensAble to quickly boil the case down to the key issues.

[back to top]

Back to index

Legal Developments worldwide

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to
  • New requirement for all issuers operating on the Luxembourg Stock Exchange

    On 10 August 2017 the Luxembourg Stock Exchange announced that all domestic and foreign issuers operating on the regulated market (Bourse de Luxembourg) or on the multilateral trading facility (Euro MTF) of the Luxembourg Stock Exchange must provide their legal entity identifier (“LEI ”) codes to the Luxembourg Stock Exchange before 15 September 2017.
  • Luxembourg law on the exploration and use of space resources entered into force

    The Luxembourg law on the exploration and use of space resources of 20 July 2017 entered into force on 2 August 2017 and placed Luxembourg among the most innovative space-oriented nations in the world.
  • VAT in the GCC – Q&A updates from the UAE Ministry of Finance

    On 9 July the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Ministry of Finance (MOF) published an update of the Value Added Tax (VAT) FAQ section of its website.
  • PRIIPs KID: The final pieces of the puzzle

    The pieces of the puzzle are finally falling into place. The long-awaited level 3 and 4 measures have been published earlier this week, half a year before the PRIIPs KID becomes compulsory.
  • MiFID II: Further guidance on product governance requirements

    Amongst the numerous topics covered by the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID II), the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has decided to provide further guidance on the requirements regarding product governance through its guidelines dated 2 June 2017 which focus on the target market assessment by manufacturers and distributors of financial products.     
  • Arendt & Medernach is again the “Luxembourg Tax Firm of the Year”

    The partners of Arendt & Medernach are pleased to announce that their firm has been awarded once again the prestigious “Luxembourg Tax Firm of the Year” title during the International Tax Review’s European Tax Awards ceremony held at the Savoy Hotel in London on 18 May.
  • Signature of the Multilateral instrument – reservations made by Luxembourg

    On 7 June 2017, the official ceremony for the signing of the multilateral instrument (“MLI”) took place bringing to a close a process initiated last year when a consensus was reached on the wording of the MLI on 24 November 2016 (see also our newsflash dated 2 December 2016, available on our website section Publications/Newsflash).
  • Arendt & Medernach: Luxembourg Law Firm of the Year

    Luxembourg, May 2017 – Arendt & Medernach is proud to have been named “Luxembourg Law firm of the year” both by Chambers & Partners and IFLR (International Financial Law Review). The prestigious trophies were both received in April in London at the respective ceremonies of the Chambers Europe Awards 2017 and the IFLR European Awards 2017.
  • First VAT EU case law on the cost-sharing VAT exemption

    The question of the scope of the cost-sharing VAT exemption, also referred to in the Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 as amended ("EU VAT Directive") as “Independent Groups of Persons” or “IGPs”, is currently being debated at the Court of Justice of the EU (“CJEU”) in several cases. Last Thursday marked the first milestone regarding this specific VAT exemption since the CJEU released its judgment in the case Commission v Luxembourg (C-274/15).
  • An Introduction to Corporate Guarantee

    In the UAE, the risk management activities inherent in running a corporate or investment banking business remain of crucial importance, not least because of the strong local characteristic of “name lending”, by which is meant lending or providing other banking facilities to family or other private businesses, primarily on the strength of the “name” or “names” of the proprietors standing behind the business, rather than on the strength of the asset quality and underlying credit of the particular business. Of course, in practice, there is commercial overlap between the proprietors and the companies which they own, but the credit analyses can break down where poor banking practices and procedures result in poorly constructed legal documentation and gaps in guarantee and security support documents.