Sarah O'Sullivan, Author at Tees Law

ROP Retinopathy of prematurity – delayed diagnosis claims

Posted on 7 January 202224 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

Premature babies are at risk of an eye disease called Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP), which may, in serious cases lead to blindness. This is why premature babies should be regularly screened in line with the 2008 National Guidelines.

In most cases, even if a baby does develop ROP, it will resolve spontaneously and treatment will not be needed. For a small number of babies, ROP worsens, often very rapidly, but with timely treatment the prognosis is good.

What is retinopathy of prematurity?

Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), also called retrolental fibroplasia (RLF) and Terry syndrome is where the blood supply to the retina does not develop normally as a consequence of being born prematurely. The retina is the layer of tissue that lines the back of the eye and makes it possible to see.

Your baby’s eyes begin to develop around the 16th week of pregnancy. If he or she is born very early, this process is cut short. The blood vessels in the inner retina do not develop a blood supply until much later in the pregnancy and this process does not complete until the end of the pregnancy. Therefore, if your baby is born prematurely, the inner retina has an incomplete blood supply. The more premature the birth, the less complete the blood supply present.

In most cases, the premature baby’s eyes will develop normally. However, in some cases, the blood vessels in the inner retina do not grow normally. They may grow into other parts of the eye such as the clear gel that fills the space between the lens and the retina of the eyeball and cause bleeding/leaking. The vessels may also change physically, to pull the retina, and, if extensive enough, cause the whole retina to detach from the eye.

Over time, these blood vessels and the associated scar tissue can cause other serious vision problems, such as:

Crossed eyes (strabismus)
Increased eye pressure (glaucoma)
“Lazy eye” (amblyopia)
Near-sightedness (myopia)

The good news is that with early diagnosis and treatment, most babies will retain a normal structural eye, with good vision.

Retinopathy of prematurity medical negligence claims

Sadly, ROP occasionally gets missed and by the time it is detected, the baby has suffered permanent visual loss. Janine Collier, Head of the Medical Negligence team at Tees, has specific expertise in helping families whose child has suffered permanent visual impairment because of a failure to detect and treat ROP. If your baby has suffered visual loss as a result of late diagnosis you may be eligible for compensation. Read on to find out more about this condition or click below to speak to a specialist solicitor.

What are the risk factors for ROP?

The risks increase with increased prematurity and the smaller your baby is at birth, the greater the chance of her or him having ROP. There are other factors which contribute to the risk including:

Ventilation
Bronchopulmonary dysplasia
Chronic lung disease
Other inter-current illnesses such as infections, cardiovascular instability
Poor post-natal weight gain

How do I know if my baby has ROP?

All infants who are at risk for it should be screened in line with the 2008 National Guidelines. The timing of the first screening examination will depend on your baby’s gestational age at birth.

The baby is given eye drops to make her or his pupils larger ahead of the examination. This helps the doctor see all the parts of the eye better. It doesn’t hurt.

As the screening is not an especially comfortable examination, local anaesthetic eye drops are usually used alongside comfort care techniques, such as swaddling, oral sucrose or expressed milk, a dummy / pacifier. Experienced ophthalmologists can usually undertake the examination in 2-3 minutes. Each eye is fully examined to check for ROP.

Screening is usually carried out two-weekly, and, if no cause for concern, stops at around 36 weeks gestational age.

If the ophthalmologist identifies early signs of ROP, the interval may be shorter as the doctor will watch to see if the condition requires treatment, or if it resolves spontaneously. Most babies with ROP will resolve spontaneously.

If my baby has ROP, what treatment will he or she need?

In the UK, approximately 4% of cases require treatment. The purpose of treatment is to preserve the anatomy of the retina, by preventing retinal detachment.

If the doctor recommends treatment, this is usually given within 48-72 hours and most commonly, it is treated with laser to the affected part of the retina.

Your baby may suffer some side effects, including inflammation (typically treated with a short course of steroid eye drops and pupil dilating eye drops for 1 to 2 weeks). Rarely, other side effects may occur. Your baby’s doctor should explain these to and discuss these with you prior to treatment.

I am worried about the care my baby is receiving – what should I do?

You might already have tried to talk to doctors about your baby’s condition but sometimes it can feel like you’re on your own. With Tees by your side, you are not. We understand what you’re going through, and we’re here to give you a voice.

We’ve handled many medical claims and have a particular expertise in supporting families with babies and young children, so our team of lawyers really do have the practical experience to support you. We’re persistent, and we’ll fight to get answers for you and you may be eligible for compensation.

Retinopathy of prematurity: Case studies

Baby A: Rentinopathy of prematurity due to inadequate care

Baby A was born prematurely at 25 weeks and 4 days gestation by caesarean section. He suffered respiratory distress, was intubated and transferred to the NICU for a period of intensive care and specialist support. He remained ventilated for 9 days, spent 22 days in Intensive Care and 7 days in the high dependency unit. During his admission, he received antibiotic treatment for sepsis, insulin for hyperglycaemia and two blood transfusions.

Baby A’s parents understood that he was at risk of ROP. However, his parents also understood that their baby would be regularly screened, so that if there were signs of ROP, he could receive treatment, significantly reducing the risk of loss of vision.

Five weeks after birth, Baby A had his first screening for ROP. At the time of the exam, Baby A was still small and in an incubator. When screened, each eye examination took around 10 minutes. Parents were advised that he would be screened every two weeks.

Baby A was transferred to a Special Care Baby Unit at a local hospital. Parents felt that the care at the local hospital was very different to what they had experienced at the previous hospital. They felt the staff treated them as over anxious young parents and did not encourage them to be a part of their baby’s care, which was unlike their experience at the previous hospital.

Whilst at the local hospital, Baby A was screened twice for ROP over a six-week period. Prior to being discharged, the Ophthalmologist spent an extended period of time examining Baby A’s eyes. During the exam the Ophthalmologist cut the white part of Baby A’s eye. After a time the despite the Ophthalmologist being unable to get a clear view, Baby A was discharged from hospital.

At a paediatric follow up the following month, Baby A’s parents told the Paediatrician that they were worried about his eyes as he would not look, follow or track. The Paediatrician said that it was just because he was a young premature baby and that they should not worry.

One month later, Baby A was referred to Great Ormond Street (GOSH) for assessment. Baby A’s parents were told that he had suffered significant and severe visual loss, equivalent of Stage 5 ROP / retinal detachment in the left eye and Stage 4a ROP in the right eye.

Baby A had surgery on the right eye at GOSH. The estimate is that post-operation he may have 2% vision in his good right eye since having the operation. It was not possible to offer Baby A any treatment for his left eye.

The outcome

The hospital that treated Baby A has admitted that the diagnosis of ROP should have been made several weeks earlier and that laser treatment should have been offered within 48-72 hours of diagnosis. Now that liability has been admitted, we are seeking an interim payment to put in place some immediate support for Baby A and his family (aids, appliances, accommodation, educational support).

As a result of a review, the hospital has changed their process and procedure for ROP screening. The Ophthalmologist no longer undertakes ROP screening and the Paediatrician no longer reviews premature babies.

Baby C: Late diagnosis of retinopathy of prematurity

Baby C was born at 24 week’s gestation, weighing c. 600 grams. She suffered several complications because of her extreme prematurity including Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Chronic lung disease, Hypertension, a patent ductus arteriosus, sepsis, hyperglycaemia and necrotizing enterocolitis.

Due to her prematurity and low birth weight, C was at high risk of suffering from ROP.

Baby C was examined by an ophthalmologist at, 7 weeks old, 8 weeks old, 9 ½ weeks old

On all occasions, it was noted that there was no ROP.

At ten and a half weeks of age, Baby C was again examined. The ophthalmologist found and recorded a “definite progression of ROP stage 3 zone 2 in both eyes, + disease”.

Treatment by both laser and cryotherapy was undertaken, but, the disease being so extensive now, was unsuccessful.

ROP behaves in a highly predictable manner and, we were, therefore, able to infer that at the time of the examination when C was 9 ½ weeks of age, it is implausible that there was no ROP present. The examination must, therefore, have been substandard. With a competent examination, C would have been referred for urgent laser treatment and, on the balance of probabilities, she would have retained good functional vision in both eyes.

Baby C lost all vision in her left eye, and has a shrunken eye. She has lost most useful vision in her right eye. She is at risk of retinal detachment, retinal degeneration, the need for surgical treatment of the band keratopathy, glaucoma and shrinkage of the right eye.

C also suffers from learning, behavioural and social difficulties because of her extreme prematurity. Her visual impairment has compounded her other developmental problems.

This case has now settled for a six figure sum.

Birth injuries to mothers: Medical negligence claims

Posted on 21 December 202124 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

Birth related injuries to mothers can be absolutely devastating, and can have long-term effects. They can affect personal relationships, careers and mental health.

Some childbirth injuries are unavoidable, and they can be a natural part of having a baby. Childbirth injuries can have an impact on the psychological and/or physical well-being of a woman. Injury can occur during any pregnancy, even if the mother has no risk factors and the pregnancy is deemed to be normal. Sadly, some injuries are caused, or made worse, when midwives and doctors make mistakes during a mother’s pregnancy, labour or delivery.

Medical negligence claims for maternal birth injury

If you believe that you may have suffered a birth injury, or think that your labour and delivery may have been mismanaged or a mistake made during your care caused the problem, you might have a medical negligence claim.

Doctor or midwife negligence can cause birth injuries which affect mothers and their families for the rest of their lives. The effects of childbirth injuries are very personal and individual, but possible consequences include:

physical symptoms which affect your quality of life, such as incontinence
mental health problems, such as postnatal post-traumatic stress disorder or depression
relationship breakdown
problems bonding with your new baby
being unable to return to work because of your symptoms

If you suffered a birth injury, are worried about the care you received, and think it might have caused a problem you may be eligible for birth injury compensation. Our maternal birth injury claims solicitors understand what you’re going through, and we can help you get answers about your care.

Find out more about childbirth injuries claims.

Common types & causes of birth injuries to mothers:

Vaginal tears during childbirth

About 9 in 10 women suffer perineal tears when the perineum (the skin between the vagina and anus) stretches as the baby is born. Most perineal tears are quite minor and should heal naturally within a short time after the baby is born. However, more serious tears can also extend to the vulva (external genitals) and muscles in the anus (back passage). These require repair, take longer to heal and may have long-term effects.

Types of tears during childbirth

First degree tears are skin-deep and only affect the outermost layer of skin around the vagina and perineum. You may need a few stitches, but normally they heal quickly. First degree tears have the best chance of quick recovery with minimal pain. Normally, there is no long term damage. Your midwife will decide in consultation with you, whether it is necessary to stitch your first degree tear or not.

Second degree tears are deeper tears, involving the muscles of the vagina and the skin around the anus. Stitches are normally required to help the tear to come together and heal. Dissolvable stitches are usually used, so that the mother doesn’t need to have them removed. Second degree tears can be quite painful and recovery normally takes a few weeks. Your midwife will examine the tear from time to time to ensure that it is healing well. You should report any signs of unusual discomfort or signs of infection to your midwife.

Third and fourth degree perineal tears are the most serious form of tears during childbirth. These types of tears are typically deeper and more serious. Third degree tears damage the anal sphincter (the muscle which controls the anus). Fourth degree tears also involve the lining/muscles of the anus. Third and fourth degree tears are unpredictable. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) lists the following as risk factors:

the mother’s first vaginal delivery
the second stage of labour is particularly long
shoulder dystocia during delivery
the baby is large (over 8 pounds 13 ounces)
labour is induced
an assisted delivery (for example, if forceps or ventouse are used).

If you are concerned about suffering a serious tear during birth, you can talk to your or midwife or doctor about it during your antenatal care. They may be able to recommend measures to help reduce the risk of a serious tear, such as perineal massage. Perineal massage helps the perineum to be more elastic and can help reduce the risk of it tearing as your baby is born. Another option is an episiotomy, a procedure designed to reduce the risk of a serious tear.

What is an episiotomy?

An episiotomy is a surgical incision made by a doctor or midwife during childbirth. It is a deliberate cut designed to expedite delivery and help reduce the risk of uncontrolled tearing of the perineum. This incision makes the opening of the vagina wider, so there’s more room for the baby to pass through.

There are two types of episiotomy you might hear about:

midline episiotomy – a cut from the vagina directly towards the anus (rarely done)
mediolateral episiotomy – a cut from the vagina, but angled off to one side of the perineum. Mediolateral episiotomies are more common in the UK.

Midwives and doctors should only recommend an episiotomy if there is a medical need, or the mother specifically requests one. It may be the best course of action if your baby is in distress and needs to be born quickly, if they are in a difficult position or if you are having an instrumental delivery using forceps or ventouse.

Some women may prefer an episiotomy over a spontaneous (natural) tear. Spontaneous tears can cause serious, lasting damage to the muscles around the vagina and anus but are said to heal better. Studies show that episiotomies reduce the risk of suffering a serious tear. Your doctor should explain the risks and benefits of an episiotomy to you before performing one.

Failure to identify and repair tears following childbirth

If you suffer a perineal tear, your caregivers should identify the tear at delivery and manage it appropriately. You can also find more information and support regarding perineal tears from the charity MASIC (Mothers with Anal Sphincter Injuries from Childbirth).

Following delivery and for the rest of your postnatal care, your midwife will ask you about the condition of your perineum and where necessary examine the perineum. Care of your perineum forms part of your post-natal midwifery follow up. Serious tears and episiotomies can, unfortunately, cause a great deal of suffering if they are unnoticed and not repaired at the time of delivery or if they’re repaired poorly. For example, they can cause complications such as:

incontinence – lack of control to pass faeces (stool) and/or wind
rectovaginal fistula – a serious tear can cause a hole in the wall between your vagina and your anus, which can cause faeces to pass through into the vagina
pain and soreness – the tear may make it difficult for you to sit for a long time, or be very active
stinging pain when passing urine
pain during sexual intercourse.
scarring.

It may also mean you need another procedure to correct the damage (secondary repair), causing further pain and distress.

If you suffered a third or fourth degree tear, if this was not identified and repaired at the time of delivery, and if you suffer continuing problems as a consequence, please contact our Obstetric Anal Sphincter Injury experts, Janine Collier and Gwyneth Munjoma for compensation advice.

Post-natal depression (PND) and post-natal post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)

A negative experience before, during or shortly after childbirth (‘birth trauma’) can affect mental health and wellbeing. Negative experiences during childbirth are highly personal, and everyone reacts differently. However there are some common signs and symptoms, for example:

difficulty bonding with the baby
a sense of ‘failure’ – that the circumstances surrounding baby’s birth were somehow their fault
feeling isolated or guilty
avoiding situations reminiscent of the birth (going to hospital, seeing birth depicted on television).

Many mothers suffer in silence. However, post-natal PTSD and post-natal depression needs the right treatment and support. Get further information about psychological damage after childbirth.

If you suffered post-traumatic stress disorder or post-natal depression following a traumatic delivery contact our experts Gwyneth Munjoma or Janine collier for advice.

Post-partum haemorrhage (PPH)

Women experience some blood loss after giving birth. Vaginal bleeding is normal for about 2 to 6 weeks after the baby is born. The bleeding is normally heaviest in the days immediately after delivery, becoming gradually lighter over time.

However, some women experience abnormally heavy bleeding, which can be dangerous. This is called a post-partum haemorrhage (PPH). There are two types of PPH:

primary or immediate PPH – heavy bleeding within 24 hours of the baby’s birth
secondary or delayed PPH – heavy bleeding after 24 hours, and up to 6 weeks after the baby’s birth.

Primary PPH happens in about 5 in 100 pregnancies. Normally, about 500ml (1 pint) of blood may be lost. However, in very rare cases, a particularly severe haemorrhage can lead to blood loss of around 2L (4 pints) or more.

Secondary PPH is rarer and affects less than 2 in 100 women. It normally happens if the mother suffers an infection following delivery. A major bleed can be life threatening. Midwives and doctors are trained to recognise situations where a mother is at high risk of suffering a PPH. They should take the necessary steps in order to reduce the chance of a haemorrhage – or prevent it altogether. And, if a haemorrhage does occur it is important to treat it quickly. Doctors and midwives are trained in controlling heavy bleeding.

If you suffered a post-partum haemorrhage and are concerned about the medical care you received contact Janine Collier or Gwyneth Munjoma for advice.

Ruptured uterus

A ruptured uterus is a serious complication during pregnancy. It happens when the wall of the uterus (womb) tears during pregnancy. It’s more common in women who have previously had a caesarean section, at the site of their caesarean section scar.

It is very important that doctors and midwives diagnose and treat a uterine rupture promptly. A ruptured uterus is considered a medical emergency because it can be life-threatening to both the mother and the baby and cause serious damage to the health of the mother and baby.

First line treatment is urgent caesarean section and uterine repair if possible (hysterectomy if not). Usually, the mother loses a lot of blood and needs a transfusion and antibiotics to reduce the risk of infection. It can take a little time to recover from losing so much blood and the surgery itself. Women who have more children in the future will need a caesarean section.

If you suffered a ruptured uterus and are concerned about the medical care you received contact our maternal birth injuries experts, Janine Collier or Gwyneth Munjoma for advice.

Prolapsed uterus

Childbirth can also cause pelvic organ prolapse. This is where one of more of the pelvic organs bulges into the vagina. It’s quite common, and the NHS states that up to half of mothers are affected by some level of prolapse.

Pelvic organ prolapse is more likely in cases where labour was particularly long or difficult, or the baby was particularly large.

A prolapse of the uterus (womb) happens when the uterus slips out of its normal position and down into the vaginal canal. Most of the time, a prolapsed uterus or other pelvic organ isn’t life-threatening. However, it can affect the mother’s quality of life and general wellbeing significantly. Possible symptoms include:

urinary incontinence
pain during sex
a feeling of heaviness in the vagina and/or perineal area.

Many cases of a pelvic organ prolapse can be managed through pelvic floor exercises, treating any constipation and weight loss (if appropriate). However, if you suffer a serious prolapse it might require more invasive treatment such as a hysterectomy (removal of the womb, which means the woman cannot have any more children) or surgical repair of the pelvic floor muscles.

If you suffered a prolapsed uterus and are concerned about the medical care you received talk to our maternal birth injuries experts, Janine Collier or Gwyneth Munjoma.

Medical negligence claims for maternal birth injuries

physical symptoms which affect your quality of life, such as incontinence
mental health problems, such as postnatal post-traumatic stress disorder or depression
relationship breakdown
problems bonding with your new baby
being unable to return to work because of your symptoms

Cerebral palsy medical negligence cases: How Tees can help

Posted on 17 December 202128 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

Babies can be born with cerebral palsy despite the highest level of antenatal and obstetric care. Unfortunately, in some cases, severe injury results from medical negligence, where healthcare providers fail to ensure the safety of mothers and babies during pregnancy and delivery. One major cause is the failure to recognize signs of fetal distress, leading to delays in critical situations.

Cerebral palsy medical negligence cases at Tees

At Tees, our medical negligence lawyers are supporting two severely disabled children and their families, striving to ensure they receive the lifetime security they need.

Liam Baker and Kayleigh Smith were both born in 2006 at separate hospitals.
Both children have severe physical disabilities (classified as GMFCS Level 5) and brain damage.
Liam is tube-fed and fully dependent on others, while Kayleigh also has limited vision.
Both experience severe epilepsy and seizures, managed with anticonvulsant medications.

Cerebral palsy during labour: Negligence in healthy pregnancies

Hannah Baker was experiencing her first pregnancy, which was deemed unremarkable.
Tracy Smith had a history of recurrent miscarriages and a previous emergency caesarean section.
Both mothers attended regular antenatal check-ups and raised concerns about limited fetal movement. Despite reassurance from normal CTG readings, problems arose during labour.

Medical experts identified failures in monitoring and timely intervention, resulting in preventable brain damage.

The importance of fetal heart monitoring

Monitoring the baby’s heart rate is critical during pregnancy and labour. A normal fetal heart rate ranges between 110 and 160 bpm.

Bradycardia refers to a heart rate below 110 bpm.
Tachycardia refers to a heart rate above 160 bpm.

Abnormal heart rates can signal fetal distress and oxygen deprivation. In both Liam’s and Kayleigh’s cases, medical experts concluded that fetal heart monitoring was insufficient.

Monitoring failures

Continuous electronic fetal monitoring was discontinued for both mothers after 30 minutes, against best practice guidelines.
NICE guidelines recommend that, without continuous monitoring, midwives should conduct auscultations every 15 minutes for at least 60 seconds.
In Hannah’s case, auscultations were conducted at half-hourly intervals, despite her experiencing severe abdominal pain – a potential sign of placental abruption.
For Tracy, with a history of miscarriage and traumatic birth, continuous monitoring should have been prioritized. Her initial abnormal CTG trace was disregarded, and it took two hours before medical staff intervened.

Detecting cerebral palsy and brain damage after birth

After birth, both Liam and Kayleigh had low Apgar scores, indicating distress.

Kayleigh was floppy and struggling to breathe.
Liam required immediate resuscitation and was placed on a ventilator.

Both children were diagnosed with acute hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy (HIE), a form of brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation.

The court process for cerebral palsy medical negligence cases

After gathering extensive evidence from independent medical experts, our solicitors instructed a barrister to represent the families. The court process involved:

Statements from the families.
Medical evidence evaluating the timing and cause of brain damage.
Determining whether earlier intervention could have prevented the injuries.

Cerebral palsy compensation

Although neither case has concluded, liability has been resolved. The next step involves determining the compensation amount, expected to reach multi-million-pound settlements to provide lifelong care and support for Liam and Kayleigh.

Free expert medical negligence advice

At Tees, our experienced medical negligence solicitors are dedicated to supporting clients and their families.

If you have concerns about your medical care, we offer free, confidential, and no-obligation consultations. Contact us via our enquiry form or arrange for a home visit if preferred. We’re here to help you through every step of your journey.

Caesarean Section Requests

Posted on 9 December 202124 April 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

A report on the variations in practice and procedure across NHS Trusts in the UK

At Tees, we are increasingly supporting women who, despite requesting a caesarean section or raising concerns about vaginal delivery, have been counselled in a way that steers them toward a vaginal birth.

Many of these women are unaware that nearly 40% of births in the UK involve either instrumental assistance or a caesarean section. For first-time mothers, this figure rises to 50%. Furthermore, around 4% of women experience third or fourth-degree perineal tears during childbirth, which can result in life-changing, long-term issues with bowel control and incontinence.

Sadly, many go on to endure traumatic births, often leading to serious and lasting physical and/or mental health problems. In some cases, their babies also suffer injury.

Read Tees Law’s own report

The copyright in this report belongs to Tees Law. Tees Law gives permission for extracts from the report to be used provided a suitable credit to Tees Law is given and a link to the full report published.

In 2018, Birthrights – a charity dedicated to promoting women’s rights in childbirth, published a report into Maternal Request Caesarean (MRCS). These are planned caesarean sections requested by pregnant women without a medical indication.

The report revealed that, despite NICE Guideline CG132, nearly 75% of NHS Trusts did not have written policies supporting a woman’s right to choose a caesarean.

It concluded that “the majority of Trusts in the UK made the process of requesting a caesarean lengthy, difficult or inconsistent, adding anxiety and distress to women at a vulnerable time.” The report called for greater transparency around the variation in policies and procedures between NHS Trusts.

Three years have passed since the Birthrights report was published. With no further research on this issue that we were aware of—and with our Medical Negligence team continuing to support women like Niamh and Anna, who have faced disempowerment and difficulty when giving birth—we undertook our own investigation in May 2021. Our goal was to assess whether practices and procedures regarding MRCS had changed across NHS Trusts since 2018.

Trust failed to advise woman on risks and benefits of vaginal delivery vs. caesarean

Posted on 9 December 202128 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

Ensuring informed birth choices: The importance of understanding risks.

Childbirth is a significant life event, and while most experiences are positive, complications can arise. Informed decision-making during the antenatal period is crucial to ensure the safety and well-being of both mother and baby.

The need for informed choices

Expectant mothers should receive comprehensive, unbiased information about the potential risks and benefits of various birthing options, including Caesarean sections, vaginal births, and other interventions. This empowers them to make decisions aligned with their individual health needs and preferences.

However, in practice, the risks of vaginal births are often underrepresented compared to those of Caesarean sections. Many women remain unaware that in the UK:

Nearly 40% of women undergo instrumental delivery or Caesarean section.
50% of first-time mothers experience these interventions.
4% of women suffer third or fourth-degree tears, leading to long-term bowel control issues and incontinence.

Lack of comprehensive counseling

At Tees Law, our Medical Negligence team has supported numerous women who faced traumatic childbirth experiences. Despite expressing concerns or requesting a Caesarean section, some were advised against it without a full understanding of the risks of vaginal delivery.

Anna’s story: A preventable trauma

In 2018, Anna (not her real name) suffered a third-degree tear during vaginal birth. Despite having pre-existing bowel difficulties, including slow transit and severe constipation, her concerns about vaginal delivery were repeatedly dismissed. Her visual impairment added to her vulnerability.

Missed opportunities

Throughout her pregnancy, Anna consistently raised concerns:

She was advised to stop taking stimulant laxatives without thorough discussions on alternative options.
Her repeated questions about Caesarean delivery were met with reassurances that vaginal birth was “safest for the baby.”
Risks associated with vaginal delivery were not communicated, despite her history of bowel issues.

When her baby was positioned “back-to-back,” increasing delivery risks, she was still discouraged from a Caesarean.

Traumatic delivery and lasting impact

Anna endured two days of contractions, leading to an instrumental delivery using forceps without an episiotomy. Following the birth, she was informed of her third-degree tear and its consequences, which severely impacted her quality of life.

Despite her long-standing bowel condition, appropriate postnatal care and medication were delayed. She continues to experience bowel urgency, incontinence, and symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

The fight for justice

Anna’s experience is not isolated. NICE guidelines state that if a vaginal birth remains unacceptable to a mother after counseling, a Caesarean section should be offered. However, a 2018 Birthrights report revealed that only 26% of Trusts adhered to this best-practice guidance.

At Tees Law, we are committed to holding healthcare providers accountable for failures in maternal care. Our experienced Medical Negligence solicitors support clients in pursuing justice, ensuring their voices are heard and their rights upheld.

Contact us

If you or someone you know has experienced medical negligence during childbirth, our dedicated team is here to help. Reach out to Tees Law today for expert legal support and compassionate guidance.

Woman suffers severe injuries and PTSD after denied caesarean request

Posted on 9 December 202128 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

Most women who give birth vaginally do so safely and without any long-term health issues. However, according to NHS data, around 4% of women suffer third- or fourth-degree tears during childbirth. In some cases, complications can result in severe and life-changing maternal injuries.

Sadly, Tees Law’s specialist Medical Negligence team knows only too well the devastating impact of such cases. One example is Niamh who experienced a third-degree tear following a vaginal birth. This was despite Niamh having expressed a preference for planned caesarean section. Her claim against Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust is based on breaches of duty before, during and after delivery.

Lack of informed consent

Niamh became pregnant in early 2018.

At 16 weeks, she met with a male registrar and explained that she expected she would need to have a C-section because all the women in her family had given birth that way. In addition to her family history, Niamh’s very slight build further suggested that C-section would be the best method to deliver her baby. Niamh recalls: “the registrar looked me in the eye and said that ‘we would very much support a vaginal birth at this stage’. lt felt to me from the outset like it was going to be a battle to get a c-section and that I was being told that I didn’t need one, despite my family history. To be told so early on that I would need to have a vaginal delivery, made me really anxious.”

Later on at her booking appointment, Niamh also explained her family history of c-sections to the midwife. The midwife referred Niamh to Birth Options to discuss the mode of delivery. There, she was told that a vaginal birth would be much better for the baby. She was also informed that a vaginal birth would allow her to get back to her daily routine sooner. Additionally, she was warned of the risks of having a C-section, including the potential to lose a lot of blood.

Throughout the antenatal process, Niamh repeatedly asked about having a C-section. At 26 weeks, it was noted that she felt “very anxious about [the] birth and uncomfortable within the hospital”. She expressed doubts about her ability to give birth vaginally but was nevertheless encouraged to pursue this route. In the end, based on the medical assurances she had received, Niamh agreed to proceed with a vaginal birth.

An assisted delivery

A week before Niamh went into labour, an ultrasound scan revealed that her baby was back-to-back, a position that increases the risk of complications during delivery. At this point, Niamh asked again if this meant she should have a C-section. She was told that the baby would likely turn around and there would be no problem.

In October 2018, Niamh went into labour spontaneously at 40 weeks. The baby remained back-to-back, and Niamh could not deliver so she was taken to theatre for assisted delivery. A C-section was not offered to Niamh. Instead, the baby was delivered after three pulls of the ventouse and four pulls of the forceps. Her daughter, Darcey, was born safely, but the instrumental delivery caused Niamh to sustain a Grade 3 tear, along with significant and irreparable muscle damage.

Postnatal negligence

Niamh bled heavily for 16 days after giving birth. She suffered faecal urge symptoms and abdominal distension, and her haemoglobin levels fell to 52 grams per litre. On day 5, she was given an X-ray but was refused a CT or MRI scan. The X-ray didn’t reveal anything and despite her symptoms, Niamh was told there was nothing untoward. Niamh pressed for a CT or MRI scan but continued to be refused. Finally on day 9, after having to wait a full weekend and only after continuing to press further, an ultrasound was performed, which failed to detect any medical issue.

Finally, a CT scan was arranged and Niamh was subsequently diagnosed with a pelvic haematoma requiring surgery.

After this, she was unable to pass urine. Several attempts at trial without catheter failed, but instead of being referred to uro-gynaecology, she was discharged with a catheter.

Niamh was in and out of hospital several times during November 2018 to attempt a trial without catheter (TWOC). Eventually, Niamh sought her own private consultant and on the consultant’s medical advice, went back to the NHS to request a suprapubic catheter.

Niamh was re-admitted in late November 2018 and underwent further surgery to insert the suprapubic catheter into her stomach, a procedure which she found extremely distressing.

Niamh’s catheter was not removed until the start of January 2019. During this time, she experienced coccyx, groin and deep pelvic pain, as well as faecal urgency. Since then, Niamh has continued to suffer from psychiatric injury. She has been diagnosed with PTSD and also suffers chronic coccyx pain, which causes her to wake up in pain. She also suffers urgency of continence and has not been able to return to work.

Failures at every stage

There were medical failures at every stage in Niamh’s story. In antenatal meetings, she was not properly counselled as to the pros and cons of C-section compared to vaginal delivery. Having expressed concern regarding the risks of giving birth vaginally, specifically in relation to her family history of C-sections, Niamh was assured that this was the best method of delivery. At no point was she presented with a balanced picture of the benefits and risks of each option. If she had been warned of the risks associated with vaginal delivery, she would have chosen a C-section.

Although she knew there was a small risk she could tear, Niamh was not warned this could lead to difficulties with continence. Moreover, she was warned of the dangers of C-section and the potential disruption this could cause to her recovery, but she was not provided with an equivalent risk assessment of vaginal delivery. For example, she was informed that she could suffer excessive bleeding with a C-section but was never told that this could also happen with a vaginal delivery. Niamh was also not informed about the risk of requiring instrumental assistance.

During labour, there was an opportunity to perform a C-section yet Niamh was not offered the option of a C-section. Furthermore, once assisted delivery with ventouse and forceps had been chosen, there was a failure to manage the delivery in such a way as to avoid the tear.

Finally, Niamh experienced negligent postnatal treatment. There was a delay in escalation, imaging, identification and treatment of the haematoma. Had the haematoma been diagnosed and treated earlier, the extent of the infection would have been less severe. Because of the failure to treat in a timely manner, her episiotomy wound broke down twice and wasn’t able to heal properly which has resulted in the formation of extremely painful scar tissue.

An all-too-common problem

Ultimately, had Niamh been able to go ahead with her preference for a planned C-section, she would have avoided the third-degree tear, haematoma and the rest of the consequences that have resulted from her instrumental delivery. Unfortunately, Niamh is not alone in suffering injury and long-term complications from a vaginal birth that should have been avoided.

Official NICE guidelines state: “For women requesting a caesarean section, if after discussion and offer of support… a vaginal birth is still not an acceptable option [Trusts should] offer a planned caesarean section.” Yet a report by Birthrights in 2018 revealed that only 26% of Trusts offered C-sections in line with NICE best-practice guidance.

Here to help

Our Medical Negligence solicitors are devoted to achieving the justice our clients deserve. If you have been affected by medical negligence, we can support you on your journey to justice, looking out for your needs and priorities every step of the way.

What is a child arrangements order during divorce or separation?

Posted on 2 December 202123 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

A child arrangements order is a legal document that formalises childcare agreements between parents who are going through a divorce or separation. It determines critical aspects such as where the children will live and how much time they will spend with each parent.

This type of court order is typically necessary when parents cannot reach a mutual agreement on childcare arrangements. Ideally, parents should try to resolve these issues amicably, often with the assistance of a mediator. However, if disputes remain unresolved, applying for a Child Arrangements Order through the court may be the best option.

Why might you need a child arrangements order?

You may require a Child Arrangements Order if:

You are unable to agree on custody or visitation arrangements.
One parent is not adhering to a previously agreed-upon schedule.
There are concerns about a parent neglecting their responsibilities.
Mediation has failed to resolve disagreements.

If both parents are cooperating and the existing arrangements are working, a court order is typically unnecessary.

How to apply for a child arrangements order

Attempt mediation first:
- Before applying for a child arrangements order, you are legally required to attend a Mediation Information and Assessment Meeting (MIAM) unless there are valid reasons not to do so, such as instances of domestic abuse.
Seek legal advice:
- A solicitor can guide you through the process, helping you prepare your application and submit it to the court.
Attend court hearings:
- Both parents will need to attend a court hearing, where a judge or magistrate will assess the situation.
- A representative from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) may also provide input by producing a safeguarding report and making recommendations.
Decision making:
- The court will prioritise the child’s welfare, considering factors like their wishes, feelings, and overall needs.
- If an agreement cannot be reached during the initial hearing, further evidence may be required before a final decision is made.

Specific issue orders and prohibited steps orders

In addition to Child Arrangements Orders, the court may issue:

Specific issue orders: For resolving specific disputes, such as which school a child should attend or whether they should follow a particular religion.
Prohibited steps orders: To prevent a parent from taking certain actions, like relocating a child abroad without consent.

Child arrangements orders vs. special guardianship orders

A Special Guardianship Order (SGO) grants parental responsibility to someone other than the child’s parents, often in cases where parents are unable to provide proper care. Unlike a Child Arrangements Order, an SGO allows the guardian to make decisions without requiring parental approval, although some significant decisions still require consent.

Can grandparents apply for a child arrangements order?

Yes, grandparents or other relatives can apply for a Child Arrangements Order, although they need the court’s permission first. This may be relevant if they have been acting as the child’s primary caregivers or if they wish to establish visitation rights.

How to change a child arrangements order

While Child Arrangements Orders are intended to provide long-term stability, circumstances can change. If significant changes occur, such as a parent relocating, remarrying, or experiencing financial difficulties, you can apply to modify the order. The court will reassess the child’s best interests before making any adjustments.

Expert legal support for child arrangements orders

Navigating the complexities of child custody during a separation can be challenging. Seeking the advice of our specialist family law solicitor can ensure that your child’s best interests remain the priority. Professional legal support can help formalise arrangements and provide clarity and reassurance during this difficult time.

For further guidance on child arrangements orders, contact our experienced family law team today.

Aortic dissection medical negligence claims

Posted on 18 November 202128 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

Aortic dissection is a serious condition that can impact at any age.

It is essential that aortic dissection is detected early, as when treated quickly there is a very good chance of survival. Sadly, when delays in diagnosis happen it can lead to catastrophic outcomes.

Jacob Hassan was a father of two, who died after having an aortic dissection aged 62.

Jacob, a keen cyclist who regularly cycled 100 miles a week, had worked as a GP for over 30 years before taking early retirement. He lived in Cambridge with his wife, Sharon, and loved visiting his grandchildren in Indonesia and Australia.

His death followed a trip to A&E after Jacob had experienced intense chest pain. He was discharged with a diagnosis of “non-specific chest pain” without being offered the scan that would have saved his life.

What is aortic dissection?

Aortic dissection occurs when there is a partial tear in the aortic wall. The aorta is the main artery that carries blood away from the heart. If a tear develops, it can allow blood to leak into the aortic lining, which can create a false channel between the inner and outer layers.

Many of the symptoms of aortic dissection are similar to those of other heart problems like heart attacks. Usually, the first sign of an aortic dissection is abrupt and severe chest, back or abdominal pain. The sensation is often described as ripping or tearing.

How is aortic dissection diagnosed?

Aortic dissection is not common and it can also be difficult to diagnose. That’s why it’s so important to have a specialist CT scan. In Jacob’s case, this could have been performed on-site to provide a quick and definitive diagnosis. When diagnosed and treated quickly, the survival rate for aortic dissections is better than 80%.

According to the Aortic Dissection Charitable Trust, however:

33% of sufferers are misdiagnosed
2,000 people die each year from aortic dissection in the UK

Like Jacob, most patients with aortic dissection suffer sudden severe chest pain, which can settle completely after a few hours. Routine tests carried out in the Emergency Department can come back normal. Only a specialist CT aortogram can conclusively say one way or the other whether a patient has an aortic dissection.

Case study of failure to diagnose aortic dissection

Jacob’s story is tragic and his death avoidable.

On a cycle ride from Cambridge, Jacob had to pull over because he was breathless. For an experienced cyclist like Jacob, this was an unusual occurrence. That same evening, he complained of chest pains, telling his wife Sharon to call an ambulance.

By the time he arrived at Addenbrooke’s Hospital’s A&E Department his chest pain was intense. The triage nurse noted the pain was stabbing in nature and radiated to the back – both classic symptoms which should have alerted staff to the need for a CT scan.

Jacob was given painkillers and a chest X-ray but was discharged without being offered a CT scan. A common scenario with aortic dissection is that it can be dismissed because patient doesn’t seem ill enough.

The pain subsided but Jacob continued to lack energy over the next few days. Then, one evening, his wife Sharon returned home to find Jacob collapsed and unresponsive. He died later that night.

Classic signs of aortic dissection missed

The decision to discharge Jacob without offering him a CT scan, despite his unexplained chest pains, was a tragic mistake. According to the coroner, a CT scan would have led to a diagnosis of aortic dissection and saved Jacob’s life.

The Coroner’s Record of Inquest noted that “The presentation of chest pain being severe, sharp, and radiating to his back was indicative of acute aortic syndrome… and should have triggered CT aortography at the hospital which would have confirmed the presence of such a dissection.

“This would have necessitated emergency cardio thoracic surgical intervention and on balance, Jacob would have survived such a procedure.”

Cambridge University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust failed to offer a CT scan and there was also a communication issue with the A&E department not being able to access to the electronic notes of the ambulance crew.

Seeking justice and raising awareness

With the help of Partner Tim Deeming in our medical negligence team, Sharon Hassan is proceeding with her case.

Once the Coroner commenced the inquest investigations, independent experts confirmed Jacob’s death could have been avoided if the cause of severe chest pain had been thoroughly investigated.

Through the case we aim to raise awareness of the effectiveness of CT scans in identifying aortic dissection.

As Sharon said: “Unless the Health Authority has a system to offer a scan to all those presenting with chest pain that cannot be explained by a heart attack, pneumothorax or pulmonary embolism, tragedies will continue” she said. “I just want to ensure no family has to go through what mine has.”

Tim Deeming, Partner acting for the family added: “It’s vital we raise awareness through shared knowledge. As a lawyer supporting families who have had such challenging circumstances, it is through shared experiences we can improve services and learn.”

“It’s about systems and it’s about support… we hope wider training can be provided about Jacob’s circumstances and we want to create a legacy so that CT investigations for aortic dissection are considered basic and fundamental to rule out.”

Medical negligence advice and help

Our medical negligence solicitors are devoted to achieving the support our clients and families need. If you or your family has been affected by potential concerns regarding your medical care, we can support you on your journey.

NHS Litigation Reform: Tees Law submits evidence

Posted on 9 November 202130 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

In September 2021 the Government’s Health & Social Care Committee launched a new inquiry to examine the case for the reform of NHS litigation.

Our Tier 1 Medical Negligence team represents patients who have suffered avoidable harm as a result of medical accidents. The team, led by Executive Partner Janine Collier, has extensive lived experience of NHS Litigation and is passionate about improving patient safety and giving clients a voice.

Janine and her team have put forward their evidence to the inquiry as they have significant concerns and wish to ensure that patients who have suffered avoidable harm whilst under the care of the NHS are appropriately represented, their voices heard and that access to justice is not compromised.

A need to focus on culture, not costs

The NHS is the largest employer in the UK and one of the largest employers in the world. The cost of NHS litigation must be seen in this context.

Over the past four years, total payments and administration costs under NHS Resolution clinical schemes have remained steady at between roughly 1.5% and 1.6% of the total NHS budget. This is a very low percentage compared to other organisations, where indemnity costs range from 1% to 15%, with almost all over 2%.

The main way to reduce cost – both human and financial – is to reduce avoidable harm.

There is evidence of a “defensive culture”, “dysfunctional teams” and “safety lessons not learned” across the NHS and until this is addressed, lessons will not be learned, change will not be implemented, errors will continue to be not just made, but repeated. The H&SC Committee’s own report into Maternity Safety published in July identifies a culture of blame within NHS Trusts.

Our medical negligence team’s view is that it is morally unacceptable to look to introduce any kind of legal reform which impedes access to justice or appropriate compensation for those who have been injured at the hands of the NHS through no fault of their own. This includes, but is not limited to, a possible introduction of fixed recoverable costs, which would have a disproportionate effect on the most vulnerable in our society.

The full version of our evidence to the inquiry can be viewed here. The outcome of the inquiry is expected in 2022.

Government debate: Funding for research into Fertility-related conditions

Posted on 12 October 202130 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

A debate is due to take place in Parliament on 1st November 2021 in response to a public petition to increase funding for research into Endometriosis and PCOS. The petition is calling for ‘more funding to enable new, extensive and thorough research into female health issues’.

Tees’ Family Law and Fertility expert Caroline Andrews is involved in the provision of information for MPs in order to assist the debate, and has been highlighting the long-term physical and emotional impact on women along with the resulting fertility issues that can occur.

A volunteer trustee of Verity the polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) charity, it is Caroline’s view that the strong public response to the petition underlines the chronic underfunding of womens’ health conditions that has taken place in the UK over a number of years.

Conditions such as polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and endometriosis can have a wide-ranging impact on a woman’s life not just on her health, but also on her employment attendance and recourse to fertility treatment. PCOS is a leading issue for women undertaking fertility treatment and the process can be time-consuming and complex with financial and legal issues to contend with at an already difficult time.

If you are affected by one of these conditions and are looking to undergo fertility treatment, you can read Caroline’s article which outlines the important legal considerations and how we can help.

Why do I need legal advice for my fertility treatment?

Posted on 12 October 202123 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

Fertility treatment can be a stressful time for all involved and therefore it is important to ensure that you are fully aware of your legal position as parents in the future.

Speaking to a solicitor may be the last thing on your mind when undergoing fertility treatment, however it is becoming increasingly necessary to ensure that you take independent legal advice.

Caroline Andrews, family law specialist here at Tees has many years’ experience specialising in fertility and surrogacy law and has leading case law experience on the issue of legal parenthood, as well as an understanding of fertility-related conditions such as PCOS. In this article, Caroline outlines the various legal implications that must be considered by all parties when a child is born through fertility treatment.

Family law judges recommend that “any person considering fertility treatment should ensure that they are familiar with the legal steps around the treatment, given the significant impact it could have both in the short and long term”.

If you are thinking about undergoing fertility treatment, it is important to consider the legal issues. The law can be complex so if you are starting a family, there are some key factors to consider:

Who will be your child’s legal parents?

How does the nature of the treatment and any donors, or forms completed at the clinic, impact on the legal parenthood?

If you are conceiving at a clinic, it is important to understand how the law governs your fertility treatment and affects your rights to information

If you are not using an at home conception, does this change how the law looks at the status of any intended parent?

In addition, if you are conceiving with, or as a known donor or co-parent, being aware of how to manage relationships and expectations to avoid problems later on and knowing where you would stand if there was a dispute between you, are also important considerations that are worth taking the time to discuss with a legal expert ahead of time.

Should I use a fertility clinic?

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) regulates all UK licensed fertility clinics. You must give informed consent to fertility treatment at a UK licensed fertility clinic and this requires a clear understanding of English law and its implications in practice for you, your future child and your donor if you use donor sperm or eggs.

If you don’t have treatment with a licensed clinic the situation is more complicated. There’s a risk that your donor will be considered a parent by law – with all the rights and responsibilities that brings.

What are my options if I am separated from my partner but wish to have a baby?

If you are separated from your spouse or civil partner and you intend to artificially conceive a child as a single parent, you should first obtain expert legal advice. English law states that if you carry the pregnancy then you are your child’s legal mother.

Your spouse or civil partner will be the legal second parent of your child for English legal purposes unless it can be shown your spouse did not consent to your treatment and artificial conception. There will be difficulties with the forms ahead of treatment and presumptions in law after treatment so advice is essential.

What is co-parenting?

Co-parenting is when two people wish to be parents but who are not in a relationship together. This is a rising trend in America and becoming more common here in the UK.

If you carry the pregnancy, you will be your child’s legal parent under English law and your co-parent may acquire legal rights and responsibilities for your child which may or may not accord with your wishes and expectations. Therefore in this situation is extremely important to have a legal expert draft a co-parenting agreement, to ensure that the childcare arrangements are established and agreed on from the start.

A bespoke co-parenting agreement will also be an important tool if a dispute arises with your co-parent or if there is a change in either of your personal circumstances.

Will a known male donor have any legal rights in relation to my baby?

Yes, he may do. Artificial conception with a known donor creates complex legal issues under English law. Your known donor will be the biological father of your child. Irrespective of your wishes, he may also acquire legal status in respect of your child, to the detriment of your legal parental autonomy. He may also acquire unintended financial responsibility for your child.

If you are considering known donation it is strongly advisable to put in place a known donor agreement before conception.

Can I seek fertility treatment abroad?

You may be considering fertility treatment abroad. The HFEA does not regulate the practices of overseas fertility clinics. You should obtain expert legal advice in your destination country because the law may be different from law in the UK. There are a number of concerns as to treatment abroad in relation to medical health and legal impact such as immigration issues for any child.

Can I take time off work for IVF treatment?

There is no specific statutory right to time off work for fertility treatment which can often be time consuming and stressful. However, your employer should treat your medical appointments for IVF treatment like any other medical appointment. Similarly, if you are written off sick by your GP due to the side effects of IVF, your employer should treat your absence as no different to any other sick leave taken not in conjunction with IVF.

If you are at a medical appointment or off sick, you must make sure you follow your employer’s usual sick policy requirements. There are specific rules for surrogates in respect of employment rights. The Tees employment team can advise you fully on your legal employment rights whilst undergoing fertility treatment.

Storage of frozen embryos, egg and sperm

The Department for Health has extended the time limit for frozen embryo, egg and sperm storage for a period of 55 years as long as consent is gained every 10 years. This is to protect people who were finding the previous limit of 10 years was not sufficient.

Fertility organisations had been lobbying the government on this point of law for some time so this extension to the time limit is very welcome.

Other considerations

If you are going through a pregnancy involving a surrogate, there are different interpretations as well as concerns around whether the intended parents can be present for the birth. To combat past lockdown measures, the Family Court has put in place systems to facilitate hearings involving parental orders via telephone and video conferencing to enable matters to progress in spite of disruption due to Covid.

The importance of a well drafted Will

Whether undergoing fertility treatment or conceiving naturally, any prospective parent should think about having a Will drawn up. Your Will should appoint legal guardians for your child in the event of your death and appoint trustees to manage your finances on behalf of your child until your child is old enough to manage these assets. Given the complexities of who is deemed a legal parent, this can impact on who is considered a child under a Will. Therefore, tailored legal advice for your family is essential to protect them.

At Tees, our specialist Wills, Tax and Trusts team can help you prepare a carefully-worded Will to ensure that your child’s interests are fully considered.

Whatever your situation, our legal specialists are here to help guide you. We at Tees understand that undergoing fertility treatment can be an emotional time for you not to mention one that involves considerable cost. The approach of our fertility law specialists is highly empathetic having been involved in the fertility sector at many levels, whilst ensuring that you receive clear advice across the full range of family law issues that you might encounter on your journey to parenthood.

We offer a fixed fee service at competitive rates and can discuss funding options for court cases if an order of the Court is required.

Tees Law appoints new Senior Partner

Posted on 7 October 202130 March 2025 by Sarah O'Sullivan

Tees Law, a leading regional law firm with offices across Cambridgeshire, Essex, and Hertfordshire, is thrilled to announce the appointment of Catherine Mowat as its new Senior Partner. Catherine becomes the firm’s eighth Senior Partner in its 108-year history and the first woman to hold the position. She succeeds David Redfern, who will continue as a Consultant and Non-Executive Chairman of Trust Tees Ltd and Tees Financial Ltd.

A career of dedication and growth

A dedicated member of the Tees family since 1998, Catherine began her career as a trainee in the Bishop’s Stortford office. During her training contract, she had the opportunity to work alongside former Senior Partners Rodney Stock in Commercial Property and Richard Tee in Private Client. It was within the Private Client department that Catherine found her passion, which has shaped her career ever since.

After qualifying as a solicitor in 2000, Catherine became a Partner in 2007. Her career progressed swiftly, and from 2005 to 2008, she balanced a demanding caseload while earning an MBA in Legal Practice. In 2009, she transitioned to the Cambridge office, becoming Head of Office the following year, leading the team for four years.

Expertise in private client law

With over 20 years of experience in Private Client law, Catherine specializes in complex estate administration and succession planning. Her expertise spans wills, powers of attorney, and succession planning for rural clients and high-net-worth individuals. She has also developed significant experience in high-value professional deputyships, often acting as a professional deputy, executor, trustee, and attorney. Under her leadership, the Private Client team in Cambridge has grown substantially, achieving a seven-figure turnover.

Leadership and contributions

In addition to her leadership in Cambridge, Catherine has served as a Director on the firm’s main board, Trust Tees Plc, since 2018. She also contributes to the management of the Private Client department across Tees’ six offices and is a key member of the Cambridge office leadership team.

Life beyond the office

Outside of work, Catherine lives near Saffron Walden. She has a passion for music, singing in local choirs, and serving as a trustee for several charities.

A vision for the future

Reflecting on her appointment, Catherine shared, “It is an enormous privilege and an exciting challenge to take on this responsibility. Tees has grown and evolved over the years, but our core values of empathy, clear communication, and collaboration remain unchanged. As Senior Partner, I aim to uphold these values and ensure they continue to guide everything we do.”

She added, “In a rapidly changing world, agility and adaptability are key. The pandemic underscored our ability to embrace new technologies and hybrid working practices. Moving forward, we must remain open to opportunities and use challenges as a catalyst for growth.”

A fond farewell and exciting future

Ashton Hunt, Group Managing Director at Tees, expressed gratitude for David Redfern’s leadership. “David’s unwavering dedication over his 38-year career has been instrumental in making Tees the successful firm it is today. We are deeply grateful for his contributions and are pleased that he will remain involved as a Consultant and Non-Executive Chairman.”

Ashton continued, “Catherine’s extensive experience and dedication make her an excellent choice for Senior Partner. I have no doubt she will lead Tees to even greater success. We are excited for the future under her leadership.”

Tees Law looks forward to the next chapter, guided by Catherine’s commitment to excellence and innovation.