David Knifton KC and Chris Gutteridge secure 7-figure settlement for brain-damaged child

April 30, 2025

In a compromise recently approved by the High Court in Liverpool, David Knifton KC and Chris Gutteridge, instructed by Fletchers Solicitors, have secured a 7-figure award of damages on behalf of a child who suffered hypoglycaemic brain damage in the days following her birth, despite the claim having limited prospects of success.

The child, now almost 15, was born slightly premature at the Alexandra Hospital in Redditch in 2010. Although the hospital staff recognized that she might be vulnerable to hypoglycaemia, she and her mother were correctly discharged home later that day, after two successful breast-feeds had been observed on the ward.

Two days later, at around 6pm, however, her mother returned to the hospital with increasing concerns that her baby was not feeding properly. The baby’s glucose levels were so low as to be unrecordable, and she showed signs of seizures after dextrose was administered. Subsequent CT and MRI scans revealed evidence of brain damage consistent with neonatal hypoglycaemia. She has been left profoundly disabled, with severe visual impairment, significant mobility issues, a severe learning disability and drug-resistant epilepsy. She is entirely dependent on others for all her daily living needs.

Although the experts agreed that her hypoglycaemic brain damage resulted from inadequate feeding in the period following her discharge from hospital, there was a significant dispute as to what had occurred when a community midwife visited the baby and her mother the next day. The child’s mother had a firm recollection that she reported feeding difficulties and jerky movements of the baby’s leg (a potential sign of early hypoglycaemia) to the midwife, which the midwifery experts agreed should have prompted immediate referral to hospital. The contemporaneous clinical notes completed by the community midwife, however, suggested no such concerns, apart from some reported difficulties in latching (a common issue in newborn babies). Further, the medical records on re-admission to hospital the following day suggested that the jerky movements only began that day. Given the unreliability of human memory highlighted in Gestmin v Credit Suisse [2013] EWHC 3560, the legal team advised that it was overwhelmingly likely that the court would accept the accuracy of the contemporaneous notes, particularly when the mother’s recollection related to events almost 15 years previously.

In the alternative, the Claimant’s legal team relied on entries in the notes referring to “few difficulties with latching” and “little reluctant to breastfeed” as raising sufficient concerns in a slightly premature baby to require follow-up the next day, where a feed had not been observed during the visit. Whilst the Claimant’s midwifery expert considered that the failure to arrange such follow-up was a breach of duty, the Defendant’s expert referred to this as a “gold standard”, and concluded that the giving of suitable advice, combined with a plan to re-visit in 2 days, met the standard to be expected of a reasonable and responsible body of midwives. Whilst the prospects of success on this issue were considered finely balanced, it was the view of David Knifton KC and Chris Gutteridge that they were less than 50%.

There were also difficult causation issues, since the experts were unable to say at what stage the tipping point from hypoglycaemic stress to hypoglycaemic brain damage would have occurred, other than that it probably developed during the course of the day leading to the baby’s re-admission to hospital. The case therefore raised thorny questions regarding the doctrine of material contribution and apportionment.

Despite recognizing the limited prospects of success, both counsel and the experienced legal team at Fletchers (Michael Gray and Niamh Maxwell) were fully prepared to contest the case to trial, listed for 7 days in May 2025, given its substantial value. That remained the position when strenuous attempts to persuade the Defendant to make a settlement offer at a JSM in January 2025 were unsuccessful.

Just a few weeks before trial, however, the Defendant applied to postpone the trial date and to replace its midwifery expert, on the basis that the community midwife had recently been diagnosed with cancer, whilst its midwifery expert had been medically advised to withdraw from medico-legal work due to extreme anxiety. Faced with the uncertainties of whether the Court would grant an adjournment and permit them to substitute a new expert, and whether the new expert would support their denial of liability, the Defendant made an offer to settle the claim in the sum of £1m.

As the Judge (Bright J) observed at the approval hearing, that left the family with a “nail-bitingly difficult decision” in the context of highly stressful litigation. The family’s view was that the offer was a life-changing sum, which would enable them to purchase and adapt a suitable bungalow where they could live with their daughter, as well as fund some equipment and respite care. Bright J indicated that he was very pleased that, with the help of her legal team, the child’s mother had managed to reach a very sensible decision to accept the offer.

Commenting on the outcome, the child’s mother said: “She doesn’t need millions to make a difference, just a little help.”

Michael Gray, partner at Fletchers Solicitors added: “…there is no escaping the fact that these sorts of cases are incredibly sad and there are never any winners.  It can be easy for the potential financial value of a case to cloud the more important assessment of what our clients want and need.  This case is a great example of just that.  It remains however, an issue for us all as patients or lawyers acting on behalf of patients who have come to harm that the absence of a particular word or sentence from the medical records can determine whether an individual recovers full compensation to meet their lifetime needs or none at all. Whilst human memory is fallible, so is handwritten record taking in time pressured environments and I look forward to a time when there is a sound technology solution that will give us all confidence and certainty in the content of medical records.”

Commenting on the outcome, David Knifton KC said: “I am delighted that we were able to secure a genuinely life-changing outcome in this case. By identifying and narrowing the issues at an early stage, we were able to deal with the litigation in a cost-effective manner, despite the risks involved. Nevertheless, it required courage and commitment on the part of the legal team to pursue the claim to a point where this settlement could be achieved. I wish the family every success for the future.”

David Knifton KC and Chris Gutteridge were instructed by Michael Gray, Partner at Fletchers Solicitors, who was supported by Megan Tyrer (Solicitor) and Niamh Maxwell (Trainee CILEX).