Skip to content

Christopher Melton QC

Call 1982 • QC 2001

"A 'tremendously able and brave advocate' who is 'prepared to fight'."
(Chambers & Partners 2012)

Clinical Negligence

Selected Cases

  • P v Salford Royal Hospitals NHS Trust – The Claimant, a 47-year-old women, received £67,786.33 following a trial, after undergoing vulval surgery as the result of clinical negligence in 1994. The claimant was unable to resume normal sexual relations and suffered psychological stress as a result of the surgery.
  • AB v Dr SHM – A case involving the delayed diagnosis of a CSF fluid by a GP. The Claimant recovered a significant seven figure sum after a five day trial.
  • Kristian Adey v Leeds Health Authority & NHS Litigation Authority – Two doctors had discharged their duty of care to a Down’s Syndrome child by fully and properly advising his parents so that they could make an informed decision as to whether the child should undergo surgery for the repair of a complete atrio ventricular septal defect.
  • Nunnerley & Anor v Warrington Health Authority – The Claimant argued successfully in a wrongful birth claim that she was entitled to recover the cost of bringing up her child, beyond the attaining of his majority. The Court of Appeal at an oral hearing refused permission to appeal.

Personal Injury

In order to give an idea of Christopher Melton’s personal injury cases, we have listed the cases in which he has appeared since 2009.

The sample is not wholly representative of the breadth of his practice because of the unpredictable nature of litigation. Other cases involve a wide range of issues involving Christopher Melton’s practice areas. These range from cases involving a challenge to the conventional method of assessing accommodation damages (Roberts v Johnstone) and many cases involving issues surrounding periodical payments. Specific injuries/issues covered in the last three years have included: frontal lobe injury, other brain injury, spinal injury at all levels, pelvic fractures in men and women, arm and leg amputations, severe burns; motor cycle contributory negligence, accident reconstruction evidence, tachograph evidence, seat belt contributory negligence, causative potency, ice or water on roads, factory accidents, claims against hoteliers, security of continuity of periodical payment, local authority funding, PCT funding, alternative funding of care in partial recovery cases, Motor Insurers’ Bureau liability, interpretation of insurance policies, recovery under personal health/accident policies, establishing the true dependency in high value Fatal Accident Claims, volenti and ex tirpa.

Selected Cases

  • Sedge v Prime – In a claim for damages for catastrophic brain injury sustained by a pedestrian who stepped into the Defendant’s path, liability was established with a reduction of damages on account of 25 per cent contributory negligence. The case involved detailed analysis of expert accident reconstruction evidence. Indemnity costs awarded, Claimant having equalled his Part 36 offer.
  • Russell v Partington – In a claim for damages arising from personal injuries sustained in a road traffic accident, a substantial interim payment was made even though liability was in issue because the judge was satisfied that liability would be established, albeit with a reduction of damages on account of 50 per cent contributory negligence, and that the eventual trial judge would probably capitalise the loss of earnings claim in the event of a finding of substantial contributory negligence. In July 2010, after a four day trial on liability, the Claimant tetraplegic motorcyclist established liability on a 100% basis. The case involved the interpretation of digital tachograph evidence.
  • Devoy v Doxford & Stuntbrand – In a FAA claim, how should the Court value the necessary replacement of services provided by a deceased husband to his severely disabled widow. The Claimant successfully argued that she was entitled to recover the actual financial cost involved.
  • JC v TP – Three days into the trial of the Claimant’s claim for damages for stress at work, the claim was compromised on confidential terms.
  • Agg v MOD – The Defendant was not entitled to resile from an admission made prior to the commencement of proceedings.
  • LA v BB & AB – After a five day contested trial on liability the Claimant motor cyclist established 85% liability, with damages to be assessed for his catastrophic injury, against two Defendants arising essentially out of the negligent siting of a construction site entrance. Damages were later agreed. Expert accident reconstruction evidence was central to the case.
  • GB v MIB – After a three day trial the Claimant motorcyclist successfully recovered 100% of his damages and his advisers then progressed to agree one of the earliest MIB PPOs. The main issue was as to the causative potency, if any, of the Claimant’s speed as he overtook a line of standing traffic.

Recommendations


“…acclaimed for his performances in negotiations, and particularly impresses clients with his ‘tact, diplomacy and ability to immediately establish a good rapport’.”

Chambers & Partners 2012

“Clients view Christopher Melton QC as a ‘tremendously able and brave advocate’ who is ‘prepared to fight’ but ‘temperate when needed.’ He is a popular choice for complex asbestos cases and medical negligence work.”

Chambers & Partners 2012

“…has an excellent reputation for his work on difficult birth injury claims, and is ‘approachable and very talented’. Commentators praise his empathy and lightness of touch and say he us ‘great with clients and has an excellent brain’.”

Chambers & Partners 2011

He “is an authority on industrial disease cases. He acts exclusively for claimants on asbestos cases and wins plaudits for his ‘really smooth advocacy style’.”

Chambers & Partners 2011

He has “a forensic ability to grapple with difficult causation and quantum issues and many solicitors think of him as an obvious choice for complex catastrophic cases. Interviewees say that they enjoy working with him as he seamlessly combines approachability and extraordinary talent.”

Chambers & Partners 2010

His “incredibly compelling and charming court style means he always gets his points over beautifully.”

Chambers & Partners 2010

“Never shirks from pressing a point and is exceptionally good with clients.”

Legal 500 2010


Portfolio Builder

Close

Select the practice areas that you would like to download or add to the portfolio

Download Add to portfolio
Portfolio close
Title Type CV Email

Remove All

Download


Click here to email this list.