Christopher Hough

Chris is clerked primarily by Lee Johnson, Clare Sabido, Jennifer Pooler and Emma Bell.

Experience & expertise

Chris has vast experience of all types of claims: cerebral palsy, acquired brain injury in children and adults, spinal cord injury, brachial plexus injury, blindness, amputations and Fatal Accident Act cases.

He is very often instructed by the families of refugees and other recent arrivals to this country and those from the traveller community. This work provides a natural cross-over with his charitable work in Asia, and his hosting of refugees at home.

He is also instructed regularly by the Official Solicitor (where the parents of an injured child are unable to act on behalf of their child).

A consistent theme of his work is that he wants to help the underdog, and to give them the very best opportunity to win their case.

Cases and work of note

• Cullen v Hennikor-Major [2025] Trial before HHJ Ambrose sitting as a Deputy HCJ. A GP negligence claim arising out of a failure to refer for urgent cancer treatment. The delay led to the need for a laryngectomy (whereby a hole was inserted in the throat and the patient breathed through the hole. A voice prosthesis was inserted). The claim was for 24 hour care (which was recovered). The GP admitted negligence, but, initially argued for a short programme of rehabilitation. This was overtaken by a late amendment shortly before trial that Ms Cullen was guilty of fundamental dishonesty. After a trial of some 12 days, this was dismissed (with indemnity costs against the Defendant). Instructed by Suzanne White and Kirsten Wall at Leigh Day; F Maladad KC and W Wraight instructed by Kennedys for Defendant.
• Gibbs v Homerton University Hospital NHS Trust [2024] A case of neonatal injury caused by a failure to treat bilirubin encephalopathy. The failure led to brain damage, characterised by mild cerebral palsy, resulting in motor problems and cognitive, behavioural and communication difficulties. Attempts to overcome these difficulties led to chronic fatigue. The presentation is characterised by inattentiveness, distraction, problems staying on task and in focus, with an inevitable impact on his education and employment. He worked as a volunteer football coach for 2 short sessions a week. The parties agreed that he lacked capacity but the Defendants expert thought he might gain capacity. The claim settled shortly after an RTM with a lump sum of £4,450,000 and variable periodical payments for care and CM rising from £68,000 pa to £103,000 pa. The PPO included an annual capacity assessment and the costs of the Deputyship paid through the PPO. The capital sum would be in the region of £8.15m. I This settlement was approved. Instructed by Olive Lewin at Leigh Day; John Whitting KC instructed by Capsticks for Defendant.
• HEX v Princess Alexandra Hospital [2024]. Claimant suffered fractured skull during instrumental delivery leading to brain damage causing very severe autism. The child had no interest in any activity, barely spoke through lack of social engagement and presented as completely passive and uninterested in the outside world. The parties agreed that he had no earning capacity and would need lifelong care and therapies. The claim settled for £5million lump sum and PPO rising from £50,000.pa to £100,000 pa The settlement was approved. Instructed by Attwaters (Penny Stead).
• Geoff Hunnam v Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Trust [2024] Claimant was a Consultant Radiologist working under enormous pressure. He regularly worked 70 hours a week. This led to a stroke, leading to very considerable fatigue (and more subtle communication difficulties). This reduced his ability to work (to part time work), with early retirement. Claim defended on basis that he suffered stroke through playing tennis. The claim settled (at second RTM, shortly before hearing), on basis that the Claimant recovered full loss of earnings.
• FDE v Barking and Havering NHS Trust [2020] Severe cerebral palsy caused by hypoglycaemia, in itself caused by poor breast-feeding. Multiple experts instructed on a conventional claim alleging an inadequate response to CTG abnormalities. In course of investigations, trial proceeded on a very unusual basis where the critical issue was: had there been effective communication/advice on breast-feeding with a young, non-English speaking refugee? Cross examination of Trust’s 15 witnesses determined the outcome. Claimant won at a liability trial in 2018. The Trust sought permission to appeal to CA but were refused. Claim settled for a lump sum of £14-15m, approved by the court in January 2020.
• Hassell v Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Trust [2018] A case of tetraplegia following spinal cord surgery. Trial in 2018 before Dingemans J. Mrs H argued that she had not given her informed consent to spinal surgery, as not told of the risk of paralysis until day of surgery (which was agreed not to give adequate time and space to consider). Issue was what was said at an earlier consultation. Ex-i-chief of H and cross-exam of surgeon critical. We won, beat Part 36 offer and recovered £4.5m (agreed damages). Case reported widely on issue of consent.
• Miller v Imperial College NHS Trust [2016] 4 day quantum hearing before HHJ Curran sitting as DHCJ. Above-knee amputee. Multiple quantum issues. Cross ex of rehab expert led to recovery of very expensive prosthesis. Cited frequently in support of genium prosthesis, discount rate on past gratuitous care (the judge adjusted the discount from usual 25% to 20%) and approval of rental of suitable property (a case of great interest given current difficulties with accommodation claims). Recovered £1.02m, beating Part 36 offer.

Recommendations

Chris is recognised as a leading junior by both The Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners.

Recent directory editorial has included the following:

• Christopher is very approachable and empathetic;
• goes the extra mile;
• intelligent, incisive and gets to the root of the case very quickly;
• He has some intellectual heft; he’s able to think and perform on his feet if unexpected things get thrown up;
• He is very clever, very hands on, and absorbs complex information quickly. He is also a great advocate;
• Christopher is an all-round star performer. He gets to grips easily with difficult issues and he is precise and concise;
• very experienced advocate;
• he is very sympathetic to his clients and is a bright and skilled cross-examiner;
• he goes the extra mile and is a pleasure to work with;
• an outstanding barrister;
• fights hard for his clients;
• very compassionate;
• confident and assured in the courtroom;
• extremely approachable;
• very clever and very professional;
• marries significant expertise with a practical approach that is refreshing and effective;
• able to formulate novel solutions to complex problems;
• accessible to clients while remaining very determined with his legal arguments;
• he’s able to formulate novel solutions to complex problems;
• he’s fiercely bright;
• great at explaining complex concepts to clients;
• pragmatic;
• brilliant on the medicine side;
• a very easy barrister to work with;
• willing to discuss things;
• very good bedside manner with the clients;
• down-to-earth;
• a really nice gentleman;
• never seen anyone deal with paperwork so quickly, week in, week out;
• very good at dealing with matters proactively and constructively;
• is immensely experienced, which counts for a lot when you are doing things like a round table negotiation; and 
• ingenious.

Privacy

Chris adopts and adheres to the provisions of the privacy notice which can be accessed here.