Product Liability
Harry is one of the leading Product Liability juniors at the Bar. He is ranked in Band 2 in Legal 500 where he is described as someone who “knows the area [product liability] like the back of his hand”.
A “thorough, hardworking barrister” with a “superb intellect”, he “outshines his contemporaries.” and “impresses with his intelligence, enthusiasm, diligence and manner”.
In Chambers and Partners, he is said to “fight his corner hard” and that “he is at his best when handling cases with complex and novel legal issues.”
Recent instructions include acting alone, without a leader, on a cross-jurisdictional pharmaceutical dispute pleaded at over £30M.
As a further recent example Harry acted for a gas network distributor, one of whose pipes had exploded, causing both significant personal injury and property damage. Harry’s client was absolved of all blame and the claim dismissed, following a contested High Court trial. Harry acted alone against a leading silk (and deputy head of chambers) and was victorious on all live issues in dispute.
This can also involve cross over with the coronial jurisdiction (where Harry also sits as a Coroner). For example, Harry recently acted for a world leading electronics manufacturer, following a residential fire started in or around the printed circuit board of a television. Both the family of the deceased and the Fire Brigade had suggested that Harry’s client had manufactured the television involved in the fire. Harry however successfully argued that the identity of the manufacturer and/or precise mechanism of failure were out of scope or alternatively insufficiently evidenced Harry’s client was not mentioned in either the Inquest Conclusion or Inquisition.
Likewise he appeared at a 4 day inquest on behalf of a leading Healthcare Equipment company, instructed by Simmons & Simmons. Despite extensive criticisms by the CQC at the outset of the coronial proceedings, Harry’s client was absolved of all and any blame.
Harry is also familiar with the Tobacco and related Products Regulations 2016 and recently advised on a Judicial Review arising out of alleged breach of the same.
Harry is the author of the chapter on product liability and multi-party actions in 18th edition of Bullen & Leake and was asked by the Bar Council to write its paper on Brexit and the Consumer Protection Act.
Medical Devices & Pharmaceuticals
Over the years Harry has acted in many cases involving drugs and medical devices. Examples of the former include a fascinating case concerning the Hepatitis B vaccine, olmesartan medoxomil and a vitamin supplement containing 568 times the safe level of Vitamin D. He also played a leading role in the Seroxat litigation (as to which see below). Examples of the latter include a claims concerning insulin pumps, an allegedly defective surgical cutting guides, and a bathroom hoist which broke [rendering a paraplegic user tetraplegic].
Harry’s background in clinical negligence also gives him a real advantage here. For example, he acts for the NHS on matters relating to the nationwide commercial recall of intra-ocular lenses. His knowledge of commercial product liability law, medical law, as well as familiarity with the underlying pathology, have been of tangible benefit to the client in this complex multi-factorial case.
Non-Medical Cases: Fires, Floods and Explosions
Harry’s property damage cases include those involving inter alia fires, floods and explosions. By way of example, Harry has a particular interest in cases concerning white goods and was involved in the Shepherd’s Bush Fire litigation as well as a high profile inquest against Whirlpool arising out of two deaths in 2014. Both these cases were cited in the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee report entitled The Safety of Electrical Goods in the UK.
With his background and reputation in product liability, Harry brings particular expertise in matters brought or defended under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. This also makes him particularly adept at dealing with complex causation cases such as those involving concurrent, competing or cumulative causes.
Group Actions
Harry has been instructed in most of the big product liability cases of recent years including: Metal on Metal Hips, Thalidomide and the Seroxat litigation in which Harry conducted a hearing against two KCs (Charles Gibson KC and Malcolm Sheehan KC). It was listed as one of the Lawyer Magazine “Top 20 cases of 2019”.He is currently instructed in the Mobile Telephone Voicemail Interception Litigation, as part of a team of counsel at Matrix Chambers.
Jurisdiction (including Jersey Law)
Harry is familiar with the Brussels Recast regulations and has advised on issues of jurisdiction, choice of law or forum involving numerous European countries i.e. Spain, Holland and Germany. Many of his cases also involve foreign manufacturers, clients or other corporations such as those based in USA, China or Denmark.
He is a member of the Pan European Organisation of Personal Injury Lawyers (PEOPIL) and the British Institute of International Comparative Law (BIICL).
Harry acts in a number of cases instructed by Jersey-based solicitors, and has advised on matters of Jersey law. For example one of his current catastrophic injury cases is approaching trial and involves contested issues on the interplay between cost of living and general damages as well as the cost of investment advice in Jersey (instructed by Stewarts, led by David Platt KC).
Selected Cases
As well as those cases mentioned above Harry has acted in the following cases:
Harry acted for the UK’s leading manufacturer of garage doors. The case was robustly defended and a strike out application on a complex point of law led to the claim being discontinued against Harry’s client (but pursued against others).
Personal injury cases involving allegedly defective push-pedal or electric bicycles.
Harry acted for the world renowned manufacturer in a case involving allegations of a defectively produced takeaway coffee cup (for a major international brand) which led to burns and psychiatric injury.
A flood caused by a faulty pressure-reducing valve. This case involved complex questions of causation and issues under the Companies Act 2006.
A restaurant destroyed by in a fire caused by tortiously accumulated grease deposits. This case raised issues concerning the proper scope of the Berni’s Inns principle.
A fire in a block of flats allegedly caused by a defective DVD player.
Property damage and consequential losses arising out of defective industrial scale paper.
A fascinating case in which Harry acts for a professional footballer whose dietary supplement was contaminated, leading him to be banned from professional football.
A subrogated claim on behalf of an insurer against Apple Incorporated, in relation to an i-pad allegedly causing a house fire.
Harry acted for one of the Defendants in this multi-party action for contractual damages/indemnity arising out of the inadvertent destruction of industrial moulds due to negligence somewhere along the contractual chain.
Subrogated claim for contractual indemnity after the re-sale of contaminated silage led to multiple cattle deaths upon third party farms.
View full profile »Articles
News
Qualifications
- MA, Corpus Christi College, University of Cambridge
- LLB, College of Law, Bloomsbury
Memberships
- Pan European Organisation of Personal Injury Lawyers
Recommendations
“Harry is a first-rate and eloquent barrister with a fine mind.”… “He thinks quickly on his feet and is able to understand and break down even the most complex of cases.”
Chambers & Partners, 2024
“Harry is a very intelligent and engaging barrister, able to familiarise himself with complex issues of fact and law at speed and produce a very high standard of written advocacy and pleadings. Harry also has good client care skills.”
Legal 500, 2024
“Good attention to detail and excellent advocacy – he is persuasive, tough, and gets his points across firmly.”
Legal 500, 2024
“Harry provides timely and detailed advice that is always well thought-through.”
Legal 500, 2024
“He is extremely sharp and tactical.”
Chambers & Partners, 2022
“An excellent barrister. Harry is able to rapidly identify the key issues in complex cases. He is also a highly effective cross-examiner.”
Legal 500, 2022
“Very bright and capable of presenting and dealing with the most complicated issues and cases.”
Legal 500, 2021
“Very hard-working, reliable and efficient. He’s passionate and completes work enthusiastically and to a very high standard.”; “He’s very diligent and a very good advocate.”
Chambers & Partners, 2021
“Impresses with his intelligence, enthusiasm, diligence and manner.”
Legal 500, 2021
“He has been excellent in a number of cases. His drive and general enthusiasm is infectious.”
Chambers & Partners, 2020
“Harry fights his corner hard.” “He is at his best when handling cases with complex and novel legal issues.”
Chambers & Partners, 2018
“His depth of PI knowledge is exceptional and he is especially helpful on quantum… A thorough, hard-working barrister”
Legal 500, 2018
