At 2TG our people are hard-working, forward-thinking and approachable. We believe our supportive culture is one of our greatest strengths.
With the set comprising around 60 barristers, we know each other well and work effectively together. We often operate in large teams with clients. Our practice management team is modern and commercial, matching barrister experience thoughtfully to clients’ requirements.
At 2TG our barristers are expert in a broad range of complementary practice areas and we enjoy repeat instructions from a variety of loyal clients.
Practised advocates from the start, all our Silks and the vast majority of our Junior barristers are recognised as leaders in their chosen fields. Many of us are at the forefront of shaping the law in our specialist areas and we pride ourselves in having excellent industry knowledge.
At 2TG our barristers have excellent experience acting across a range of industry sectors and we are able to offer advice in an informed and commercial context.
Our combination of practice area excellence and industry expertise means we possess real insight into the commercial realities facing our clients operating in these areas. Secondment plays an important part of our commitment to developing our skills and understanding.
2TG is home to award-winning accredited mediators, arbitrators, adjudicators and experts with considerable experience of alternative dispute resolution.
Our barristers are also skilled as advocates in different alternative dispute resolution procedures and work strategically with clients to understand their commercial objectives, and then to resolve litigation as cost-effectively and expeditiously as possible.
Work with an international dimension forms a significant part of many barristers’ work at 2TG.
We appear in international courts and arbitral tribunals all over the world, frequently acting on complex multi-jurisdictional disputes. We are particularly well-known for managing cross border litigation on matters of jurisdiction and applicable law and appear regularly in the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.
At 2TG, in addition to our professional advice, we are recognised for our excellent contribution to education and development. We provide regular high-quality training.
Our reputation among the legal profession and other clients for our first-rate webinars and in-person conferences is very important to us. We also contribute frequently at industry events and as editors of leading texts and authors on topics of legal interest.
Insights
This clinical negligence claim arose out of the reporting of an MRI scan to assess for cauda equina compression when the Claimant attended the Defendant’s hospital on 6th June 2017. The Claimant alleged that there was a negligent failure to report cauda equina compression, and that the failure to do so meant she missed the opportunity to undergo urgent surgery to treat her condition. The Defendant maintained that the scan did not show compression of the cauda equina and that, in any event, it had been reported in a reasonable manner.
Mr Justice Sweeting agreed that the legal test that was to be applied in this “pure diagnosis” case was that set out by the Court of Appeal in Penny v East Kent Health Authority [2000] Lloyd’s Rep Med 41, and confirmed by the High Court in Brady v Southend University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2020] EWHC 158 (QB): namely that the Court first had to determine what, as a matter of fact, was there to be seen on the imaging, and then apply the Bolam test in order to determine whether, notwithstanding what was in fact present, the scan had been reported in line with a reasonable and logical body of radiology opinion.
It was held that, as a matter of fact, the MRI scan did not show an acute cauda equina compression, so that it could not be said that there had been an unreasonable failure to report the same. In reaching this conclusion, Mr Justice Sweeting noted that the Claimant’s radiology expert had “made a number of errors in his interpretation of the scan including identifying pathology at the wrong level”. The Judge indicated that this “did not inspire confidence” in the opinion of the Claimant’s expert and, as a result, he accepted the evidence of the Defendant’s radiology expert on all points of dispute.
Accordingly, the claim was dismissed.
The case confirms that the approach adopted by the Court in Brady (in which Anna also appeared for the successful Defendant) is indeed the correct approach to adopt in “pure diagnosis” cases. The case further emphasises the need for experts to ensure that their reviews of imaging are accurate from the outset, as unforced errors are likely to undermine the credibility of the expert.
Anna was instructed by Dominic Samson of DAC Beachcroft LLP.