Christopher Melton has practised in all aspects of medical and personal injury law throughout his career. He was Senior Counsel to the Shipman Inquiry between 2001 and 2005, appointed by the Treasury Solicitor. He is instructed by specialist firms nationwide and spends a significant proportion of his time appearing and advising in London as well as in the regions.

Christopher Melton specialises in advising and appearing in cases involving the seriously, catastrophically or fatally injured. He regularly appears in Court, both at first instance and at appellate level. His current caseload encompasses the whole range of issues that arise in these cases. He has significant expertise at appellate level. He has a particular interest in the analysis of medical, financial and scientific expert evidence and exploring the interface between the law and science. Although the mainstay of his practice involves brain, spinal and fatal injury, particularly cerebral palsy in the clinical negligence sphere, he has an ongoing interest in cases involving upper and lower limb amputations. He has been recognised as a leading practitioner in his chosen fields over many years. He occasionally ventures into the criminal courts, both prosecuting and defending, where medical or scientific evidence is at the fore. He frequently appears at Inquests, an area of the law in which he gained in-depth knowledge on the Shipman Inquiry. He has advised or appeared in numerous multi-party claims, including group actions arising out of product liability for asbestos, sexual abuse by medical practitioners and physical and sexual abuse in care homes. The professional liability work undertaken is against medical professionals and lawyers; the claims against lawyers involve multifarious failures appropriately to prosecute clinical negligence and personal injury claims.

In order to give an idea of Christopher Melton's personal injury cases, we have listed the cases in which he has appeared since 2009.

The sample is not wholly representative of the breadth of his practice because of the unpredictable nature of litigation. Other cases involve a wide range of issues involving Christopher Melton's practice areas. These range from cases involving a challenge to the conventional method of assessing accommodation damages (Roberts v Johnstone) and many cases involving issues surrounding periodical payments. Specific injuries/issues covered in the last three years have included: frontal lobe injury, other brain injury, spinal injury at all levels, pelvic fractures in men and women, arm and leg amputations, severe burns; motor cycle contributory negligence, accident reconstruction evidence, tachograph evidence, seat belt contributory negligence, causative potency, ice or water on roads, factory accidents, claims against hoteliers, security of continuity of periodical payment, local authority funding, PCT funding, alternative funding of care in partial recovery cases, Motor Insurers' Bureau liability, interpretation of insurance policies, recovery under personal health/accident policies, establishing the true dependency in high value Fatal Accident Claims, volenti and ex tirpa.

Sedge v. Prime (2011)
QBD Royal Courts of Justice (HHJ Burrell QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) January 2011. Lawtel.

In a claim for damages for catastrophic brain injury sustained by a pedestrian who stepped into the Defendant's path, liability was established with a reduction of damages on account of 25 per cent contributory negligence. The case involved detailed analysis of expert accident reconstruction evidence. Indemnity costs awarded, Claimant having equalled his Part 36 offer.

Russell v Partington (2009 and 2010) (QBD)
In a claim for damages arising from personal injuries sustained in a road traffic accident, a substantial interim payment was made even though liability was in issue because the judge was satisfied that liability would be established, albeit with a reduction of damages on account of 50 per cent contributory negligence, and that the eventual trial judge would probably capitalise the loss of earnings claim in the event of a finding of substantial contributory negligence. In July 2010, after a four day trial on liability, the Claimant tetraplegic motorcyclist established liability on a 100% basis. The case involved the interpretation of digital tachograph evidence.

Devoy v Doxford & Stuntbrand [2009] EWHC 1598 (QB)
In a FAA claim, how should the Court value the necessary replacement of services provided by a deceased husband to his severely disabled widow. The Claimant successfully argued that she was entitled to recover the actual financial cost involved.

JC v TP (2009)
Three days into the trial of the Claimant's claim for damages for stress at work, the claim was compromised on confidential terms.

Agg v MOD (2009)
The Defendant was not entitled to resile from an admission made prior to the commencement of proceedings

LA v BB and AB (2009)
After a five day contested trial on liability the Claimant motor cyclist established 85% liability, with damages to be assessed for his catastrophic injury, against two Defendants arising essentially out of the negligent siting of a construction site entrance. Damages were later agreed. Expert accident reconstruction evidence was central to the case.

GB v MIB (2008)
After a three day trial the Claimant motorcyclist successfully recovered 100% of his damages and his advisers then progressed to agree one of the earliest MIB PPOs. The main issue was as to the causative potency, if any, of the Claimant's speed as he overtook a line of standing traffic.