header-logo header-logo

New Law Journal | The leading weekly legal magazine

Home Login E-newsletter About us
Latest
Opinion
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.’

FEATURES
The rise of non-court dispute resolution in family law is a necessity, not a trend, writes Kate Stovold
Andrew Otchie considers a decision that sits at the centre of the legal afterlife of the Northern Ireland conflict
Nick Smallwood & Paul Hilder find a mixed platter in the Advertising Standards Agency’s first rulings on junk food ads
Professor Graham Zellick KC identifies the constitutional, legal & governance issues arising from Lord Mandelson’s appointment & dismissal as ambassador to the US
A landmark anti‑SLAPP judgment leaves important procedural questions unanswered, say Claudine Morgan, Hannah Gornall & Ellen Roberts

Some employment law controversies are never truly put to bed: they are only sleeping. Ian Smith rings the alarm on the latest cases

David Burrows considers when costs can be limited or capped in family proceedings appeals
Old rules, modern conflict—time to change approach? Roger Smith doesn’t think so
Was the promise actually delivered? Robert Hargreaves & Lily Johnston explain why employers must act now
View All

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Winckworth Sherwood—David Fendt

Restructuring and insolvency practice strengthened by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Billy Poulter & Shay Moore

Gateley Legal—Billy Poulter & Shay Moore

North West residential development team welcomes partner and associate

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Burgess Mee—Victoria Sterritt

Family law boutique expands London team with legal director hire

Meet our legal trainees
NEWS
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but its successful adoption depends as much on culture as technology
The fallout from Lord Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal as UK ambassador to Washington raises profound questions about constitutional governance, accountability and political appointments
Pastries may be in the firing line while kebabs escape scrutiny, but the reality is far more nuanced
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
MOST READ
back-to-top-scroll