Michael is clerked primarily by Lee Johnson, Clare Sabido, Jennifer Pooler and Emma Bell.
“Michael’s grasp of the issues in a case is impressive. He is an astonishingly good advocate. Clients trust him implicitly. He puts them at ease and delivers his advice in a compassionate manner.”
Chambers & Partners
Michael Horne KC appears for the successful claimant in Gahir v Ola. Please click here for the judgment.
experience & expertise
Michael has practised in healthcare law throughout his career. For over thirty years he has had a busy clinical negligence practice in which he has acted for Claimants and Defendants in a wide range of claims. His long experience of representing healthcare professionals before their regulatory bodies and in coroner’s inquests brings added depth to his understanding of the choices and outcomes his clients face. Michael’s practice has an increasing focus on issues surrounding mental capacity, in which he regularly appears in treatment decision cases for both the Official Solicitor and NHS bodies.
In clinical negligence, Michael has always had a varied, busy, and heavy-weight practice since his early days as a junior barrister. Clinical negligence has remained the mainstay of his practice since taking Silk in 2016. Although Michael acts primarily for the Claimants, he continues to represent Defendants. He considers that this not only improves the objectivity of his advice but also gives an excellent understanding of the issues each party faces and the best tactical approach.
His practice is focused on claims of the highest value and medical complexity, such as perinatal brain injury, brain injury following viral or bacterial infection, stroke, spinal neurological injury, cauda equina, and diabetic or vascular amputations. Most areas of medicine have featured in his practice over the years. Michael has a particular interest in complex causation issues; multiple concurrent or consecutive causes of injury, or successive tortfeasors.
The natural overlap between the issues of capacity and consent to medical treatment in clinical negligence claims has led to Michael developing expertise in cases where adults or children cannot make their own decisions about serious medical treatment. Michael has acted in several leading Court of Protection cases.
Whatever their nature, Michael considers that meticulous preparation and attention to detail are indispensable in securing the best possible outcome for his clients. This theme is common to all aspects of his work, whether it be paperwork, consultations, written or oral advocacy.
Michael always aims to give balanced and pragmatic advice,
Whether acting for a grievously injured claimant or clinicians facing the pressures that litigation or regulatory proceedings bring, Michael prides himself on being sympathetic to the needs of the client, approachable, flexible and responsive.
recent reported judgments include:
- Gahir v Ola [2024] EWHC 390 (KB) (encephalitis; catastrophic brain injury breach of duty; causation; quantum);
- NHS North Central London ICB v Royal Hospital for Neuro-Disability and XR (Withdrawal of Life Sustaining Treatment: Delay) [2024] EWCOP 66 (acting for the Official Solicitor where the hospital had delayed deciding whether to continue CANH from patient in a vegetative state about whom little was known);
- University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust v ST [2023] EWCOP 40 (acting for the Official Solicitor in a high-profile case where a Trust sought to move a woman with a progressively degenerative mitochondrial disease to a treatment plan of palliative care);
- Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust v Mrs C [2022] EWCOP 28 (acting for the Official Solicitor in a case concerning the best interests of a religious woman who was left in a vegetative state following a cardiac arrest);
- Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust v KM & TM [2021] EWCOP 42 (acting for the Official Solicitor in a case concerning the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from a 52-year-old man who had been healthy before suffering a cardiac arrest and contracting COVID-19);
- X NHS Foundation Trust v A [2021] EWCOP 17 (acting for the Official Solicitor in a case where the applicant Trusts sought a declaration that it would be lawful to carry out an elective caesarean section on a mother whose mental health meant that she lacked the capacity to determine the appropriate treatment).
recommendations
Michael is consistently recommended by both Chambers & Partners and the Legal 500 as a leading silk in clinical negligence and Court of Protection.
Recent editorial includes:
- his eye for detail is impressive and his handle on the issues means he can deal with matters effectively and efficiently;
- an outstanding advocate but also has a manner that clients just appreciate. He has an incredible grip on the issues;
- he is very calming and reassuring;
- very good tactically, particularly in cases where there are multiple defendants;
- I’ve been incredibly impressed with his attention to detail;
- one of the top silks around and a calming influence in the room;
- he’s a really conscientious barrister;
- his attention to detail is first rate and can be the difference between winning and losing cases;
- meticulous attention to detail, there is nothing he would miss in a set of medical records;
- an outstanding advocate;
- a skilled negotiator in the most difficult of clinical negligence cases;
- has a manner that clients just appreciate;
- very thorough in analysing all issues raised in a case;
- extremely methodical, conscientious and patient;
- he’s very clever, his attention to detail is second to none and you always feel hugely supported when working with him;
- has an incredible grip on the issues;
- he has a real sensitivity with clients;
- oral advocacy is persuasive and calm;
- he has the confidence of his clients and is completely reassuring;
- he is excellent tactically and he has a very balanced approach to issues;
- a knowledgeable silk with lovely style in court;
- he is extremely talented and has a strong breadth of experience;
- is genuinely helpful – nothing’s too much trouble;
- he’s a very hard-working man;
- an excellent advocate, calm and unflappable – a real authority in the courtroom;
- very bright;
- a pleasure to work with;
- he’s very approachable, highly experienced and has excellent judgement;
- knowledge and experience in Court of Protection is great;
- working as part of a team with instructing solicitor is very much appreciated;
- you’ll always get his full attention;
- a very experienced and respected silk;
- he’s utterly professional, very sympathetic to clients and well known by the experts;
- good on his feet, he has a very sure grasp of the case;
- he is experienced, incredibly detailed and very client-friendly;
- he is good at scrutinising the records and the evidence;
- often acts as sole counsel against silks on medically complex cases involving catastrophic brain and spinal injuries, and delayed diagnoses of cancer;
- he’s well respected and client-friendly;
- he has a huge intellect;
- especially good at quantum;
- he is particularly good at liaising with health and social care professionals to understand the nuances of the evidence;
- he has stacks of confidence and experience, and grasps the issues in a case very quickly;
- his cross-examination of witnesses and understanding of medicine are second-to-none;
- he is persuasive and so knowledgeable about all medical law;
- he has a strong civil background but also criminal advocacy skills;
- a senior junior well versed in matters before the GMC and GDC;
- an attractive advocate;
- sensible, personable and really knows what he is doing;
- his attention to detail is outstanding;
- extremely personable and reasonable;
- his approach and manner with the lay client and witnesses is fantastic;
- he excels due to his extremely thorough case preparation; and
- I am staggered at how good he is.
RECENT COMMENTARIES IN MEDICCAL LAW REPORTS
- R (Karmakar and British Medical Association) v Royal College of General Practitioners [2024] EWHC 2211 (Admin), [2024] Med LR 547 (General Practitioner training – Assessment tests – Attempts policy – Disability – Neurodiversity – Judicial review – Academic judgement- Delay – Fettering of discretion – Rationality – Public sector equality duty – Reasonable adjustments – Discrimination)
- R (Maguire) v HM Senior Coroner for Blackpool and Fylde [2023] UKSC 20, [2023] Med LR 499 (Coroner – Inquest – Death in care home – ECHR, article 2 – Substantive obligation – Enhanced procedural obligation)
- CNZ v Royal Bath Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2023] EWHC 19 (KB), [2023] Med LR 59 (Brain damage – Elective caesarean section – Informed consent – Application of Montgomery – Acute profound hypoxic ischaemic insult – Divisibility – Apportionment – Impossibility or difficulty – Aliquots – Material contribution)
- Lewis-Ranwell v G4S Health Services (UK) Ltd [2022] EWHC 1213 (QB), 2022] Med LR 321 (Strike out – Illegality – Homicide – Insanity – Criminal or quasi-criminal acts – Public policy)
- Chouza v Martins [2021] EWHC 1669 (QB) [2021] Med LR 546 Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 – Fatal Accidents Act 1976 – Quantification of Loss – Loss of earnings – Harris ratio of Financial Dependency – Disclosure.
- R v Broughton [2020] EWCA Crim 1093 Med LR 65 Gross negligence manslaughter – Drug overdose – Failure to secure medical assistance – Causation – Substantial cause of death – Substantial chance of survival – Criminal standard of proof.
- XM v Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust [2020] EWHC 3102 (QB) MLR 2021 07 [2021] Med LR 79 Health Visitors – Nursery Nurses – Standard of Care – Head Circumference – Brain injury – Rejection of expert evidence.
- Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13 [2020] Med LR 155 Vicarious liability – Independent contractor – Relationships akin to employment – Pre-employment medical examinations – Sexual assault.
- JK v A Local Health Board [2019] EWHC 67 (Fam) [2020] Med LR 31 Autism Spectrum Disorder – Psychiatric hospital – Refusal to eat – Mental capacity – Force feeding – Manifestation of mental disorder – Treatment to alleviate or prevent a worsening of mental disorder – Mental Health Act 1983, section 63 – Inherent jurisdiction – Declaratory relief.
reflections
Most of our lay clients have not met a barrister before. I try to dispel any preconceptions by being approachable and completely on top of their case. Whenever we meet, I always take time to understand their concerns and ensure that the client remains at the centre of the decision-making.
All barristers have slightly different ways of working. The facts in our cases are often involved, and the medicine complex. For me, attention to detail has always been really important. What at first seems like a small point of detail can lead to a chain of enquiry, a productive line in cross-examination, or ultimately a decisive factor in a judgment.
“I always take time to understand their concerns and ensure that the client remains at the centre of the decision-making.”
It is one of the strengths of the split legal profession that the client has the benefit of at least two lawyers thinking about the case. My instructing solicitors are all experienced professionals with their own perspectives of a case. I welcome and value their full involvement in the advice we give and decisions we make.
I have been member of Chambers here for the whole of my career. One of the real strengths of our Chambers is the fact that there are so many colleagues who specialise in the same areas as I do. If any of us have a difficult or new legal issue, or a difficult judgment call to make, there are always senior colleagues only too happy to help. That support is enormously reassuring but also means that the client receives the best service we can give.
publications
- Contributor to Medical Treatment Decisions and the Law (4th edn), co-edited by Christopher Johnston KC and Sophia Roper KC
- Contributing Editor to LS Law Reports, Medical
- Contributor to Medical Treatment Decisions and the Law (3rd edn)
related professional activities
- Bar Council Remuneration Committee, Vice Chair (Civil, Public) (2014 to date)
- Director of the Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund (2015-2021)
- Member of PNBA, PIBA, COPBA and LCLCBA
- Mentor Bar Council’s Silk and Judicial Appointments Scheme
university or higher level qualifications
Cambridge University, Trinity Hall [MA (Law) 2:1]
Privacy
Michael adopts and adheres to the provisions of his privacy notice which can be accessed here.
FURTHER INFORMATION
For further details of Michael’s practice please click on the links to the left or contact a member of the clerking or client service team.
Bar Council Membership No: 28966
Registered Name: Michael Andrew Horne
VAT Registration No: 629193518