header-logo header-logo

04 February 2026
Issue: 8148 / Categories: Legal News , Clinical negligence , National Health Service , Health & safety
printer mail-detail

High cost of clinical negligence outlined

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has urged the government to move towards a less adversarial system of clinical negligence, after the total cost to the NHS quadrupled within 20 years to an eye-watering £60bn

The PAC report, ‘Costs of clinical negligence’, published last week, highlighted ‘disproportionate legal costs’ with claimant legal fees more than tripling to £538m in 2024-25. Lower value claims with damages of £25,000 or less cost 3.7 times more in legal fees than victims received in damages.

In terms of types of case, brain injury suffered during maternity care represented 2% of all claims by volume but the damages accounted for 68% of total costs.

One factor behind the increasing costs is that claims are settled based on how much care would cost in the private sector rather than the NHS, which stems from a 1948 law. The PAC said this means the taxpayer may pay twice for clinical negligence—once for compensation and again if the victims uses the NHS for their care.

The PAC called on the government to produce within two months a national framework for improving patient safety with annual targets, and a national system for sharing data between NHS trusts. It called, in particular, for a government plan to improve maternity care and reduce the cost of claims in this area.

Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, PAC chair, said a less adversarial system would reduce costs and ensure claims are paid more quickly.

Dr Pallavi Bradshaw, medical director at Medical Protection Society, which assists healthcare professionals, said: ‘The government simply cannot afford to do nothing. A comprehensive strategy—which balances fair compensation for patients and affordability for the NHS—is urgently needed. This strategy must iron out the many inequities and flaws in the system—not least disproportionate legal fees in lower-value claims.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Firm welcomes partner with specialist expertise in family and art law

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Dual-qualified partner joins international private client team

NEWS
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
A seemingly dry procedural update may prove potent. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold explains that new CPR 31.12A—part of the 193rd update—fills a ‘lacuna’ exposed in McLaren Indy v Alpa Racing
back-to-top-scroll