Kate Bennett Year of Call 2014 Kate remains calm in the face of a storm. An eloquent and persuasive advocate. - Legal 500 UK Bar 2023
Since calling to the bar in 2014, Kate has built up a busy and varied reparation practice with a particular emphasis on clinical negligence, disease and complex personalinjury cases.
She is regularly instructed for both pursuers and defenders in all areas of personal injury litigation, includingroadtraffic, employers and publicliability as well as product liability cases.Kate is the Faculty of Advocates representative on the ASPIC Personal Injuries User Group.
Kate Bennett Bio, Age, Parents, Husband, Kid, Cnn, Salary, Instagram
Kate has a particular interest in clinical negligence and catastrophic cases.She regularly appears in the Court of Session and ASPIC. She is also very experienced in conducting Fatal Accident Inquiries.
Kate has been described as a very able advocate whose years of experience working as a solicitor before going to the bar means that she combines technical ability, competence in court and commercial awareness, all appreciated by clients.
In this clinical negligence action, Kate represented the defenders who were successful following Proof. The pursuer alleged negligence on the part of a urology nurse specialist and general surgeon in relation to his intravesical BCG treatment for bladder cancer, which he claimed caused him to develop BCG-osis (a rare complication). The pursuer failed to prove his case on both breach of duty and causation.
Washington, D.c's Best Lawyers 2023 By Best Lawyers
Junior counsel for defenders in unusual road traffic case. The first defender ran over pursuer who was lying in the road (at night) and who he had not seen. Proof on liability only. Complex evidence in relation to conspicuity, perception and psychological factors. The defenders were ordained to lead at proof. They were successful. The pursuer has lodged a reclaiming motion and appeal hearing dates are to be assigned in March 2021.
Acted for one of the defenders in fatal claim arising from mesothelioma. Opposed motion for jury trial. Defenders argued that the pursuer’s right to jury trial was precluded by section 22(4) of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
AH v Greater Glasgow Health Board, SR v Johnson & Johnson Medical Ltd, YT v Spire Healthcare Ltd, EN v Greater Glasgow Health Board 2018 SLT 535
Drop The Suit
Debate on procedure roll.Acting asone of three junior counsel for pursuers in four lead cases arising out of use of vaginal mesh products.
Acted as junior counsel for the defender in fatal claim arising from a road traffic accident. The defender lost control of her car and as aresult a passenger in the vehicle, died. The defender failed to establish that her loss of control was caused by something other than her own negligence (the defender’s position was that the accident was caused by the condition of the road).
Acted as junior counsel for pursuer who suffered severe injury following fall from his motorbike after it skidded on a damaged road surface. The roads authority (defenders) were successful, the pursuer failed to prove that the damaged road surface constituted a significant hazard.
Kate Bennett, Author At Sharp Tudhope
Debate on procedure roll.Acting asone of three junior counsel for pursuers in four lead cases arising out of use of vaginal mesh products.
Acted as junior counsel for the defender in fatal claim arising from a road traffic accident. The defender lost control of her car and as aresult a passenger in the vehicle, died. The defender failed to establish that her loss of control was caused by something other than her own negligence (the defender’s position was that the accident was caused by the condition of the road).
Acted as junior counsel for pursuer who suffered severe injury following fall from his motorbike after it skidded on a damaged road surface. The roads authority (defenders) were successful, the pursuer failed to prove that the damaged road surface constituted a significant hazard.
0 comments
Post a Comment