Home / People / Chris Horsefield
Portrait of Chris Horsefield

Chris Horsefield


CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP
1-3 Charter Square
S1 4HS
United Kingdom
Languages English

Chris is responsible for an enthusiastic and dedicated group of 15 lawyers comprising CMS’s Clinical Risk and Medical Advisory and Professional Discipline and Regulatory teams committed to providing high quality and cost effective legal services from our London, Manchester and Sheffield offices.

The team deals predominantly with defending clinical negligence claims and professional disciplinary cases against doctors (generally before the General Medical Council) as well as assisting them in inquests. Most of our work is on the instructions of the leading medical defence organisation in the UK, the MDU. The team works for other medical and professional indemnity insurers and members of the medical profession for matters where they are not covered by a medical defence organisation. We also get involved in other aspects of CMS's work where there is a medical or medical regulatory aspect, including for private health care providers in a rapidly expanding area of the health market for legal services, for example assisting in "Safeguarding" and Serious Untoward Incident inquiries.

The work is both UK and international. The team has a strong reputation for excellence in defending high value, high profile, complex clinical negligence claims.

Chris and the team’s interest and expertise extends beyond the medical profession to other professions and in acting for both regulator of and regulated professionals. Panel appointments include the General Optical Council (GOC), an appointment based on an innovative joint venture arrangement with leading barristers’ chambers 2 Hare Court, with our clients benefitting from the combined skills and extensive experience of both solicitors and barristers working together seamlessly.

more less

"Well-earned reputation in the field"

Legal 500

A "very sound" and "massively experienced" practitioner with exceptionally good judgement. He is routinely instructed by prominent medical defence organisations in clinical negligence claims and is also noted for his expertise relating to inquests.

Chambers & Partners

"An impressive leader of an impressive team"

Legal 500

"Tough and fair advocate."

Chambers & Partners

"An extremely shrewd and experienced litigator"

Legal 500

Memberships & Roles

  • Member of the Association of Regulatory and Disciplinary Lawyers (ARDL)
more less


  • 1977 – LLB – University of Sheffield
more less


Clin­ic­al Neg­li­gence and the Sec­ond­ary Vic­tim – A call to De­fend­ants to...
The case of Paul v Roy­al Wol­ver­hamp­ton NHS Trust finds that loved ones of a primary vic­tim can bring a suc­cess­ful sec­ond­ary vic­tim claim, over a year after the peri­od of al­leged clin­ic­al neg­li­gence. We...
Key con­sid­er­a­tions for con­duct­ing in­tern­al in­vest­ig­a­tions re­motely
With so many busi­nesses in lock-down, many in­tern­al in­vest­ig­a­tions will have to be con­duc­ted re­motely, with in­vest­ig­a­tion teams, em­ploy­ees, ex­tern­al coun­sel and oth­er pro­viders work­ing from home for the...
Su­preme Court rules that costs of com­mer­cial sur­rog­acy can be re­cov­er­able
Last week the Su­preme Court made the land­mark de­cision that awards for dam­ages to cov­er the costs of for­eign com­mer­cial sur­rog­acy, us­ing donor eggs, can now be re­cov­er­able un­der cer­tain cir­cum­stances...
Su­preme Court finds em­ploy­ers less likely to be vi­cari­ously li­able for...
In re­vers­ing the Court of Ap­peal’s de­cision, the Su­preme Court in Barclays Bank plc v Vari­ous Claimants has re­in­forced the abil­ity of com­pan­ies to use the “in­de­pend­ent con­tract­or de­fence” when faced...
Clin­ic­al neg­li­gence: dent­al prac­tice vi­cari­ously li­able for neg­li­gence...
The County Court in Leeds has re­cently set an im­port­ant pre­ced­ent by find­ing a dent­al prac­tice vi­cari­ously li­able for neg­li­gent dent­al work car­ried out by an un­in­sured dent­ist who was not dir­ectly em­ployed...
Clin­ic­al neg­li­gence: court finds no duty of care owed to third party and...
In Bot v Barnick, sep­ar­ate claims by Ms Bot and her part­ner Mr White­head against two med­ic­al pro­fes­sion­als were sub­ject to suc­cess­ful strike out ap­plic­a­tions. The de­cision to strike out each of the claims...
Med­ic­al neg­li­gence and antenat­al care: test for breach of duty and caus­a­tion
A re­cent High Court de­cision provides guid­ance on the threshold that needs to be met with re­spect to is­sues of breach and caus­a­tion in a med­ic­al neg­li­gence con­text. Facts The claimant, aged eight-and-a-half...
Med­ic­al neg­li­gence and prox­im­ity
A claim by daugh­ters who wit­nessed their fath­er, Mr. Paul’s, death as a res­ult of a heart at­tack seek­ing dam­ages for psy­chi­at­ric in­jury, has been struck out. It was held that there was a lack of prox­im­ity...
Clin­ic­al neg­li­gence: con­sent and stand­ard of care in antenat­al screen­ings
The claimant, Edyta Mor­del, A moth­er who was not prop­erly in­formed when de­clin­ing antenat­al Down’s syn­drome screen­ing, has been awar­ded com­pens­a­tion from the NHS in re­spect of her claim for clin­ic­al...
Edu­ca­tion, Health and So­cial Care Pro­fes­sion­al Risks
In an in­creas­ingly li­ti­gi­ous en­vir­on­ment, ef­fect­ive man­age­ment of pro­fes­sion­al, clin­ic­al and reg­u­lat­ory in­vest­ig­a­tions con­tin­ue to pro­tect the in­teg­rity and ac­count­ab­il­ity of the pro­fes­sions.CMS’ edu­ca­tion...