Sitemap

John de Bono

CALLED TO THE BAR 1995

Junior Counsel


Clinical Negligence & Healthcare Profile

Background

  

1990 Downside School
1993 1st Class Honours, Oxford University, Philosophy and Theology
1994 CPE, De Montfort University, Leicester, (placed 1st)
1995 ICSL, called to the Bar

Email: jdebono@3serjeantsinn.com



General Information

  


Directory Comments

 

John is recommended in police law and clinical negligence by leading legal directories Chambers & Partners and the Legal 500.

 

"John de Bono is widely praised by those that instruct him as an "absolute cut above the rest" since "he can easily carve his way through the most complex issues." One impressed solicitor said that "working with him you really feel like you are working in a partnership."  Chambers and Partners 2012

 

'John de Bono acts for both claimants and defendants, and routinely works on prominent, high-value cases.'.... Chambers and partners 2011

 

"...'first rate', 'responsive' and a 'brilliant advocate'..." Legal 500 2010

 

John de Bono is considered to be “reliable counsel.” Chambers and Partners 2010


'John de Bono continues to build an impressive practice with an emphasis on disciplinary work. He has particular interest in judicial review and public law generally.' .... Chambers and Partners 2010

 

'...“star of the future” John de Bono has won some challenging medium and high-value cases. He is admired for his “enthusiastic, pleasant style,” and for his “well-prepared advocacy and sound judgement.”' Chambers & Partners 2009 

 

"...able to identify and deal with the crux of a claim simply and efficiently..." Legal 500 2008

Nature of Practice

  

Medical law 

John is a clinical negligence specialist. He has a large clinical negligence practice and experience in cases involving most areas of medicine, surgery and psychiatry.  He is regularly instructed on behalf of both claimants and defendants. In the recent past he has been instructed in cases involving the following specialties: anaesthesia , colo-rectal surgery, cardiology, cosmetic surgery, chest medicine, dentistry, ENT, general practice, neurology and neurosurgery, nephrology, obstetrics and gynaecology – including birth trauma/ failed sterilisation, oncology, ophthalmology, oral and maxillo-facial surgery, orthopaedics, paediatrics, pharmacology, psychiatry, radiology, rheumatology and urology. He is regularly instructed in higher value cases, including cerebral palsy cases and wrongful birth cases. He has experience of multi-party actions including the Alder Hey organ retention litigation.


John regularly acts in public law cases involving medical issues:  challenges to disciplinary determinations by the GMC, PCTs and Local Health Boards; access by relatives to patients in hospital, best interests declarations. In the past twelve months he has appeared successfully in four clinical negligence trials, three of which arose out of delayed diagnosis of cancer and the fourth involving neurotoxicity consequent on chemotherapy. He has taken part in numerous settlement/ round-table meetings, often in cases of great complexity and/ or high value and frequently against leading counsel. John was instructed in a major (£9m) fraud case centring on the correct interpretation of the NHS Drug Tariff in relation to the supply of medical appliances by appliance contractors. This case went to the Court of Appeal (Bullen v. Central Liverpool PCT, (2006) 89 BMLR 130, CA).


John was junior counsel for Liverpool City Council in the leading case of Ryan v. Liverpool Health Authority and Liverpool City Council (2002) Lloyd’s Rep Med 23 in which the High Court considered whether local authorities or insurers should pay for care and accommodation for those claimants whose damages were administered by the Court of Protection. He subsequently wrote on this issue for the Journal of Personal Injury Litigation (June 2002, December 2003) and the Solicitors Journal (October 2003). John is also interested on the impact of the Human Rights Act on personal injury claims. In an article for the New Law Journal (July 2003) he contended that an HRA compliant reading of the Fatal Accidents Act would give same-sex couples the right to claim dependency damages.


Mental health 

John has considerable experiences of cases involving mental health issues.  He was counsel to the Broadmoor Inquiry into the homicide of Richard Loudwell in April 2004 (chaired by Robert Francis QC). The Inquiry started hearing evidence in September 2005 and was published in October 2009.
Community care law: John regularly advises local authorities in respect of the provision of social services and is instructed to defend challenges by way of judicial review.


John has a special interest in the law relating to people with learning disabilities and was involved in a number of test appeals both in the Care Standards Tribunal and on appeal to the High Court and Court of Appeal relating to the rights of former care home residents to become tenants of their own home (Moore v. CST & CSCI (2005) 1 WLR 2979 : (2005) 3 All ER 428)

Group actions

John has experience of group actions including the Alder Hey Organ Retention Litigation and the Accord Knee Group Action.



Specialist Information

 


Reported and other cases of Interest

 
Chandrasekera v Nursing & Midwifery Council [2009] EWHC 144 (Admin)  -  having represented Mrs Chandrasekera through the Bar Pro Bono Unit, John subsequently appeared at the appeal to contend that in the particular circumstances of this case, striking off the nurse convicted of manslaughter of her husband was an excessive sanction.
Azzam v GMC (2009) LS Law Medical 28; (2009) 105 BMLR 142 – Having first appeared for Dr Azzam at the GMC, John represented Dr Azzam in his appeal against the GMC's finding of impaired fitness to practise led by M. Forde QC.  As a result of this decision the GMC is now required to take into account steps taken by a doctor to remediate his practice since the matters giving rise to a complaint.
Tagg v Countess of Chester Hospital (2007) 95 BMLR 76. John represented the Claimant. A gynaecologist had failed to inspect bowel properly following surgery leading to peritonitis.
Central Liverpool PCT v. Charles Bullen Stomacare Ltd (2006) 89 BMLR 130, CA: a primary care trust was prevented from recovering a disputed overpayment to a pharmaceutical supplier where it had not followed the prescribed procedures for doing so in accordance with the National Health Service (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1992 reg.24.
Moore v. Care Standards Tribunal and CSCI  (2005) 1 WLR 2979 : (2005) 3 All ER 428, CA: the grant of a tenancy to a resident was not inconsistent with that person living in a care home for the purposes of the Care Standards Act 2000.
Ryan v. Liverpool Health Authority and Liverpool City Council (2002) Lloyd`s Rep Med 23:  a patient for purposes of litigation was entitled to free care and accommodation regardless of level of damages.
Liverpool City Council v. Secretary of State for Health, Stanley Burnton J., Lawtel: consultation by central government about grants to local authorities relating to the provision of community care services to persons who formerly had preserved rights under s.93 Local Government Act 2000 was neither inadequate nor irrational.

Clients

 


Publications

 


Lectures and Seminars

 

John regularly lectures to solicitors and other interested groups:
September 2010: First Oxford Medical Law Conference, Wadham College “Causation”
December 2010: Failed sterilisation/ wrongful birth claims

February 2011: Accommodation claims

March 2011: Experts/ Part 35 Questions

March 2011: Limitation

April 2011: “When patients sue”, British Medical Journal

Related Professional Activities

 
Member of Personal Injury Bar Association and Professional Negligence Bar Association.

Other Information