Clinical Negligence Costs Lawyer
Yvonne is a qualified Costs Lawyer who joined Keoghs in 2010 and specialises in costs in clinical negligence claims. She is also responsible for the continuing development of the costs unit′s competency, skills and knowledge in relation to clinical negligence costs and, furthermore, acts as a point of contact for clients. Yvonne previously developed and managed Keoghs Costs Budget team and therefore has extensive experience of dealing with all aspects of costs management including preparing precedent H, advising on opposing budgets and attending costs management hearings.
She joined from a national defendant clinical negligence law firm where she worked for 10 years as a Senior Costs Executive advising the National Health Service Litigation Authority, NHS Trusts and medical defence organisations. Yvonne also has experience of acting on behalf of claimants having commenced her career in legal costs at a costs consultancy firm before taking a post as costs manager at a personal injury practice. She has dealt with a wide range of matters including clinical negligence, employer′s liability, housing disrepair, family, motor, public liability and immigration proceedings.
Latest Insights by Yvonne Booth
The clinical negligence exception to the LASPO Act 2012 abolition of recoverability of ATE premiums has resulted in a series of conflicting decisions as to the application of the new test of proportionality and the relevance of Rogers v Merthyr Tydfil CBC  EWCA Civ 1134.
ATE premiums incepted after 1st April 2013, save for exceptions in relation to certain types of cases, ceased to be recoverable between parties as a result of the changes introduced by LASPO. However, there are many thousands of cases still running under the old regime which often raise contentious issues surrounding reasonableness, necessity and proportionality.
Yvonne Booth questions whether the costs of attending an inquest should be recoverable in the context of a civil claim?
Client Alerts 02/11/2015
On 8th October 2015, the Commercial Court considered the date from which interest at the judgment rate should run on costs.