Edward Faulks QC > Chambers of Simon Readhead QC > London, England > Lawyer Profile

Chambers of Simon Readhead QC
1 Chancery Lane
LONDON
WC2A 1LF
England

Lawyer Rankings

London Bar > Professional negligence

Within: Leading Silks -

Edward Faulks QC



1 Chancery Lane



He has a wealth of experience.

London Bar > Personal injury, industrial disease and insurance fraud

Within: Personal injury - Leading Silks -

Edward Faulks QC



1 Chancery Lane



Judges like his calm, measured approach.

1 Chancery Lane is ‘highly proficient in personal injury and related law‘. The set is renowned for its involvement in historic abuse claims, but its specialisms also encompass motor-fraud cases as well as high-profile claims against local authorities. Edward Faulks QC and Paul Stagg appeared in the landmark case of CN v Poole BC on the issue of whether social workers owe duties of care to children in investigating allegations of abuse and neglect. Angus Piper is noted for his particular expertise in Highways claims relating to injuries caused by falling trees.

London Bar > Clinical negligence

Within: Leading Silks -

Edward Faulks QC



1 Chancery Lane



He is excellent in negotiations and alive to innovative legal arguments.

The ‘excellent1 Chancery Lane offers a ‘full range of experience in the clinical negligence field‘. Members have particular expertise acting in cases concerning catastrophic birth injuries, as well as claims arising from mental illness. The set has built a ‘strong reputation‘ in multi-party actions and representing defendants in ground-breaking cases. Barristers are praised for their ‘collaborative approach to work and instructions‘. Edward Faulks QC represented the defendant in the Court of Appeal case of XX v Whittington NHS Trust, in which a claimant, who was rendered infertile due to clinical negligence, sought damages for the costs of a commercial surrogacy arrangement in California. Also for the NHS, Edward Bishop QC acted for the defendant in YAH v Medway NHS Foundation Trust, in which the distinction between primary and secondary victims in claims for psychiatric illness was addressed.