David Green
A personal injury and employment barrister with particular interest and expertise in occupational disease, military and international claims, and in discrimination and whistleblowing cases.
Practice Areas
Panels
- Case Analysis Panel
- Contributing Author
- Q&A Panel
Qualified Year
- 2015
Membership
- Personal Injury Bar Association
- Employment Lawyers Association
- Employment Law Bar Association
- Pan-European Organisation of Personal Injury Lawyers (PEOPIL)
- Industrial Law Society
- Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts
- Equality and Human Rights Commission panel of counsel
Qualifications
- BA (Hons) (2007)
- Graduate Diploma in Law (2014)
- BPTC (2015)
Education
- University of Oxford (2004-2007)
- City Law School (2013-2015)
7 Contributions by David Green
PRACTICE NOTES
Clinical negligence: delayed diagnosis and treatment—duty, causation (material contribution) and loss of a chance
Introduction
The duty of care expected of doctors and other clinicians is widely recognised. Yet claims alleging delayed diagnosis or treatment are often made harder by issues of causation. Almost every clinical negligence claimant arrives with existing health risks. The core question in this field is whether, and exactly which, further harm and loss were brought about by the supposed medical negligence...
Types of claim
Cases involving delay in treatment or diagnosis arise across the NHS. The most substantial claims tend to occur in acute and emergency settings—an unwell patient moves through many steps in a large hospital, and each stage offers scope for delay. Typical instances include:
late ambulance attendance at the scene or slow transport to hospital
patients being incorrectly triaged in A&E
postponed referral for investigations
investigations being misinterpreted
delay or failure in obtaining senior or specialist input
In Gouldsmith, a breach of duty was found where vascular problems affecting the claimant’s fingers and hands should have prompted the hospital trust to...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Military noise-induced hearing loss claims against the Ministry of Defence (MOD): regulatory duties, combat immunity, limitation, causation (CLB/LCB vs rM-NIHL), MDL and quantum
Background
Claims for noise‑induced hearing loss (NIHL) have existed for many years, yet in recent times there has been a marked surge in actions brought against the Ministry of Defence (MOD), in particular on behalf of Army, Navy and RAF personnel for NIHL arising from military service—commonly termed ‘M‑NIHL’ claims. While M‑NIHL shares much in common with occupational NIHL (O‑NIHL), these military claims often present distinctive characteristics that must be taken into account when handling and progressing them.
Existence and extent of duties
Members of the armed forces are not employees, as they do not serve under contracts of service; in constitutional terms, they are servants of the Crown. Nevertheless, it is firmly recognised and long established that service personnel are owed duties equivalent to those owed to employees by their employers.
Military Deafness Litigation (MDL)
M‑NIHL claims also at present proceed within the framework of an ongoing Military Deafness Litigation (MDL), involving roughly 5,000 claimants pursuing such cases, which are being coordinated together in a manner akin to formal group litigation. A High Court trial of ten lead cases is currently listed to be heard in October 2025...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRACTICE NOTES
Practitioner guide to Part VI RTA 1988 and MIB: liability hierarchy, sections 148 and 151, Article 75, uninsured/untraced claims, exclusions, conditions precedent, Brexit changes and automated vehicles
Introduction to Road Traffic Act 1988 and Motor Insurers Bureau
This Practice Note offers a concise overview of motor insurance, uninsured motorists and untraced drivers, clarifying Part VI of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988) and the Motor Insurers' Bureau (MIB) Uninsured and Untraced Drivers Agreements.
Motor insurance in the UK is notably complex. Across much of mainland Europe, the owner insures the vehicle and the policy extends to any driver who has the owner’s permission. By contrast, UK cover is generally written for specified drivers, and frequently only for stated uses.
Part VI of the RTA 1988 requires compulsory third-party motor insurance and sets out a statutory scheme describing when an insurer must pay damages to an injured person. It gives effect to what is now Directive 2009/103/EC, the Sixth Motor Insurance Directive.
The MIB is a private organisation comprising all of the UK’s motor insurers. Operating as an insurer of last resort, it can be required to satisfy a judgment against a motorist who lacks insurance, or who cannot be traced...
Insurance & Reinsurance
PRECEDENTS
County Court Particulars of Claim precedent: workplace needlestick/sharps injury—employer negligence citing HSWA, PPEWR, PUWER and MHSWR (England and Wales)
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [ insert ]
Claim No: [ insert claim number ]
BETWEEN
MR A B Claimant
-and-
C D LIMITED Defendant
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
At all material times, the Defendant owned and/or ran a business [ description of business, eg collecting and processing refuse ].
At all material times, the Claimant was employed by the Defendant as a [ job title eg dustbin lorry driver and loader ].
Details of Incident
At about [ time ] on [ date ], the Claimant was [ description of work activities being undertaken ] at [ location ] in the course of their employment.
The Claimant wore liveried attire and personal protective equipment supplied by the Defendant. This included [ details of equipment, eg Type 1 gloves, which extended approximately three centimetres up the Claimant’s forearm above his wrist, and a short-sleeved company-branded T-shirt ].
Whilst the Claimant was [ description of the incident, eg collecting loose rubbish sacks ], they felt a sudden prick on the exposed area of their forearm, roughly two centimetres above the glove line...
PI & Clinical Negligence
PRECEDENTS
Precedent particulars of claim: delayed diagnosis/treatment clinical negligence against an NHS Trust (England and Wales)
[ IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [ insert ] OR IN THE HIGH COURT ]
Claim No:
Parties: [ Insert name of Claimant ] Claimant and [ Insert name of Defendant NHS Trust ] Defendant
PARTICULARS OF CLAIM
This action arises from personal injuries sustained due to clinical negligence.
At all material times:
The Defendant owned, ran, operated and oversaw the E F Hospital (“the Hospital”) pursuant to the National Health Service Acts, and, through its employees, servants and agents, provided and delivered medical, specialist and other services to patients;
The Claimant was and remained a patient of the Defendant.
...
PI & Clinical Negligence
Q&As
Battery (Trespass) vs Personal Injury Damages: Civil Remedies
The issue here is between ‘a claim for personal injuries’, and ‘a claim in negligence or in battery’
This distinction confuses the category of harm (and the relief for it) with the juridical basis of liability. ‘Personal injury’ is not a tort at all—it is a type of harm flowing from a tort, which in turn generates a legal entitlement to redress. It must be differentiated from other forms of physical harm—for example, loss to property—and from other tortious invasions of personal rights (for instance, the reputational harm occasioned by the tort of defamation). The former labels damage; the latter names the actionable wrong...
PI & Clinical Negligence
Q&As
Self-employed earnings loss: recoverability if loss is company’s
Where the claimant trades as a sole proprietor, the assessment of losses is essentially a calculation of net earnings from self-employment, after deducting all overheads, tax, and similar items from their total gross takings for the year...
PI & Clinical Negligence
If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.
