Leading law firm Penningtons Manches Cooper is delighted to announce the appointment of Robert Dransfield as a partner in its nationally recognised personal injury and medical negligence team. Based in the London office, he will focus on complex and high value medical negligence claims, further strengthening the firm’s well established reputation in this area.

Robert joins from Stewarts where he was a medical negligence partner between 2007 and 2025. He has particular expertise in major spinal cord injury and cauda equina syndrome claims, and is also very experienced in brain injury, oncology, infection and amputee claims, particularly those valued at in excess of £1 million.

Widely respected by both clients and his peers, Robert is a specialist panel member of Action against Medical Accidents (AvMA), the UK charity for patient safety and justice, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine, and an Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) practitioner. He is recommended by both Legal 500 and Chambers UK, where he is described as ‘an exceptional individual’ and ‘a master tactician, always one step ahead’.

Led by partner Philippa Luscombe, Penningtons Manches Cooper’s team of over 40 personal injury and medical negligence specialists is known for a combination of high quality technical expertise and client focused service to individuals and their families across the UK. It consistently achieves band 1 rankings in both the leading legal directories and is also commended in The Times Best Law Firms list. For the 2025/26 financial year, the team is expecting to see a 10% increase in turnover.

Commenting on Robert’s arrival, Philippa said: “This is an important strategic appointment as we look to further enhance the capability of our London medical negligence practice, particularly in high value work and the delivery of exceptional client care. Robert is exactly the individual we hoped to find – not only because of his unquestionable expertise, but also his commitment to his clients and his thoughtful, meticulous approach. He is an excellent fit for our team – in terms of his personality, technical ability and reputation – and we are thrilled to welcome him.”

Robert added: “It is a privilege to join such a well‑regarded national practice. My work will remain centred on advocating for clients who have suffered catastrophic injuries, with particular emphasis on complex cauda equina syndrome claims and life‑changing brain and spinal cord injury cases. Penningtons Manches Cooper has strong specialist teams in all my key areas of focus, and I have long been genuinely impressed by its reputation in the sector. I have thoroughly enjoyed meeting the team so far and feel that the firm’s collegiate and collaborative culture aligns extremely well with my own approach.”

The government’s consultation on earned settlement closed on 12 February 2026, marking a significant milestone in what may prove to be one of the most substantial reforms to UK immigration law in recent years.

The earned settlement proposals represent a fundamental shift from the current time-served model to a system where settlement must be actively earned through demonstrable contribution and integration. The baseline qualifying period for indefinite leave to remain would double from five to ten years for most migrants, with those in Skilled Worker roles below RQF Level 6 facing a default period of 15 years. However, the proposals also include mechanisms to reduce these periods based on high earnings (over £125,140 for three years could reduce the period by seven years), public service, or community contributions such as volunteering. Conversely, the qualifying period could be extended significantly for immigration breaches, criminal convictions, or receipt of public funds, with some individuals potentially facing waits of up to 30 years.

What makes these proposals particularly controversial is the government’s stated intention to apply the changes retrospectively to existing visa holders. This means individuals already partway through their five-year journey to settlement could find themselves subject to the new, longer qualifying periods when the rules come into force, which is expected to start in phases from April 2026.

The consultation sought views on whether transitional arrangements should apply, but Minister for Migration and Citizenship Mike Tapp confirmed during a Westminster Hall debate on 2 February that while aspects such as retrospectivity and transitional arrangements remain under review, the government intends to proceed with the earned settlement model in principle. However, it has been made clear that the proposals will not affect those who already hold ILR, those with settled or pre-settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme, and those with status under the Windrush scheme.

Given the significance of these changes, the Home Affairs Select Committee also conducted its own inquiry examining the broader implications of these reforms and the complex and wide-ranging impact of changing ILR rules, and gathered evidence from stakeholders across the immigration sector. This closed on 2 December 2025.

For employers and individuals currently navigating the UK immigration system, these developments create considerable uncertainty. Businesses should be reviewing their current workforce to identify those who might become eligible for settlement before April 2026 and those eligible for ILR should be considering whether to apply sooner rather than later. The proposed changes could have significant implications for long-term workforce planning, with extended visa cycles potentially doubling or tripling sponsorship costs and making the UK less competitive for international talent.

The mandatory requirements under the new system would include no NHS or government debt, passing the Life in the UK test, proving English at B2 level (up from the current B1), and a completely new requirement that all applicants (with limited exceptions) must demonstrate earnings of at least £12,570 annually for three to five years before applying. These requirements alone may prove challenging for many current visa holders, particularly those who are unable to work eg those with caring responsibilities.

The immigration team at Penningtons Manches Cooper has been actively involved in feeding back on these proposals and ongoing policy engagements. With the consultation now closed, we await the government’s response and the detailed Statement of Changes expected in March.

In the meantime, if you have any questions or wish to discuss the potential impact of the proposals, please liaise with your usual contact in the immigration team or email us at immigration.enquiries@penningtonslaw.com.

A joint investigation undertaken by BBC News and the New Statesman has intensified concerns over maternity care at University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, which is already facing an independent inquiry into its maternity services.

In an article published on 12 February 2026, the two news outlets summarise findings based on Freedom of Information requests made by Truth for Our Babies, a group of bereaved parents who have bravely joined together to share their experiences of maternity care at the Sussex trust and to raise awareness of the poor standards.

University Hospitals Sussex was one of ten NHS trusts identified by Health Secretary Wes Streeting in June 2025 as requiring urgent review. This decision followed an unannounced two‑day Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection of the Royal Sussex County Hospital’s A&E and maternity departments in February 2025.

At the time of the health secretary’s announcement, maternity negligence specialists at Penningtons Manches Cooper noted that maternity care in Sussex was already under heightened scrutiny following a series of inspections, whistleblowing reports, and mounting concerns about patient safety.

The 2026 BBC News/New Statesman investigation reveals that between 2019 and 2023, the trust carried out 227 internal reviews into maternity deaths. In at least 55 cases, there was a finding that different care ‘may’ or was ‘likely’ to have made a difference to the outcome.

The two news outlets also report that the trust paid out £103.8 million for errors in maternity care between 2021 and 2025, including £34.3 million in 2024/25 alone, the highest figure in England during that period. Despite these findings, University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust maintains that its mortality rates over the past three years sit below national averages, arguing that larger trusts naturally attract higher claim volumes.

Emma Beeson, senior associate in Penningtons Manches Cooper’s medical negligence team and head of the maternal injury team, comments: “The findings from this joint investigation are incredibly worrying. Most troubling of all is the concern raised by members of the Truth for Our Babies group that there may be cases where some bereaved parents do not realise that, but for failures in the medical care provided, their babies may have survived.

“It is very rare that any doctor, midwife or clinician sets out to cause harm, but problems are compounded when there has been a failure to be open and honest with families about the mistakes that may have occurred. Without this recognition and openness, change cannot happen and, by change, I mean real fundamental and systemic change that feeds through at all levels.”

Penningtons Manches Cooper regularly supports families affected by substandard maternity care and offers guidance to those considering legal action. If you or a loved one have concerns regarding recent maternity care, our specialist maternity negligence claims team is available to discuss these without charge and on a no obligation basis.

Please contact us on freephone 0800 328 9545, email clinnegspecialist@penningtonslaw.com or complete our online assessment form.

The conventional approach to calculating dependency is changing from the traditional assumptions made in 1984. At this time, the courts adopted the approach set out in the case of Harris v Empress Motors where it was decided that for two cohabiting married parents who lived together with one child or more, the dependency percentage is 75%, or with no children, 66%.

In our experience as injury solicitors, exceptions are the rule as family dynamics do not always fit the Harris v Empress model. Anomalies arise where parents are divorced, in the process of divorcing, or in the event that there is a prospect of reconciliation. In this instance, the test is not one of the balance of probabilities, but there has to be a realistic expectation, supported by good evidence, that the couple might have achieved a reconciliation, which is calculated on a percentage basis.

There is very little in the fatal accidents act to guide parties as to the correct approach in the case of single parent families where the primary caring parent dies. The typical 75% or 66% calculations are likely to be arbitrary in these circumstances and, because of the absence of statutory guidance, this gives parties plenty of scope to present bespoke calculations based on actual data of what was spent on whom.

Another question that arises in cases of single parent families is what happens when the primary caring parent dies and that care is replaced by the previously absent parent. Does the gain outweigh the loss? In the case of Stanley v Saddique [1992], the dependant child received unsatisfactory care when living with her mother, but after her death the child moved in with the previously absent father and received, as it turned out, a better quality of care than she did with her mother. The court had to consider whether this extinguished the services dependency claim and, by virtue of section 4 of The Fatal Accidents Act, it decided that it did not because the question is ‘what has the claimant lost as a result of the death?’. Therefore care received after death is not taken into account.

In the event of the death of both parents, it is generally inappropriate to apply the conventional approach set out in Harris v Empress Motors. In these circumstances, evidence of actual expenditure by the parents is the preferred method, as in the case of Dhaliwal v Hunt [1995]. However, the subsequent question relating to adoption has led to what many consider an anomalous decision in the case of Watson v Willmott [1991] where the judge circumvented section 4 of the act. He stated that the adoption was not as a result of the child’s parents’ deaths, but rather as a result of the legal adoption process and the legal obligation of the adopting parents to provide for the child.

Unlike many other types of litigation, claims under the Fatal Accidents Act do not require, as might be expected, each and every dependant to be named as a claimant in the proceedings. Although section 2(4) lays down special requirements for all dependants to be named in the particulars of claim, section 2(2) states that all or any of the dependants need to be named as claimants in the action.

The law for dependency claims following a fatal accident is full of exceptions and special situations that require careful and detailed analysis of what are usually unique family situations needing an expert, bespoke approach to the claim. The specialist clinical negligence and personal injury teams at Penningtons Manches have extensive experience in working with these quirks of the law in order to recover substantial damages for families and dependants who have lost loved ones.