Tom Barclay-Semple

Year of call: 2016

: 0345 034 3444
: jmason@kingschambers.com
: Clerked by: James Mason
: Download vCard
: Add to portfolio
: Download CV

Tom is a health and welfare law specialist, focusing on Court of Protection, inquests, and clinical negligence. He is ranked as a leading practitioner in all three fields in both the Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners (see the Recommendations tab).

He is skilled at getting to grips with complex medico-legal issues in difficult cases, and his clients praise his attention to detail, personable approach, and pragmatic advice.

In the Court of Protection, Tom is regularly instructed on behalf of local authorities, integrated care boards, NHS Trusts, the Official Solicitor, and members of P’s family. He has appeared in a wide range of disputes, typically arising out of section 16 and section 21A applications. His practice covers both Health & Welfare and Property & Affairs. Recent matters have included disputes over contact arrangements, overlapping jurisdiction with the Mental Health Act 1983, care arrangements, revoking lasting powers of attorney, medical treatment, and fluctuating capacity assessments.

His inquest work involves acting for families, NHS Trusts, local authorities, and other interested parties in both Jamieson and Middleton-style inquests. Tom regularly acts in inquests concerning hospital and nursing home care, deprivations of liberty, and care in the community. He has experience in inquests both with and without a jury sitting.

Tom’s clinical negligence practice encompasses both claimant and defendant work. It builds upon his time working for a nationally recognised law firm before coming to the bar. He is experienced in a wide range of complex and high value clinical negligence disputes, including birth injuries, surgical negligence, dental negligence, delays in diagnosis, fatal injuries, informed consent, and material contribution claims.

Expertise

“Excellent technical expertise and pragmatic approach. Tom is also very personable and well-liked by clients.” Chambers and Partners 2026
“Tom has excellent legal knowledge with insightful analysis and strategic thinking.” Chambers and Partners 2026

“Tom is concise, always thoroughly prepared and excellent on his feet. An approachable junior.” The Legal 500 2025

“Tom is adept at picking through swathes of complex information and offering proportionate and pragmatic advice. He is very personable and seems to have an innate ability to get the judge on side.” The Legal 500 2024

“An excellent junior whose year of call belies his expertise and tactical sense. Tom is an effective advocate who has a good presence in court and is well liked by clients for his tenacity and calm manner.” The Legal 500 2023

Tom is particularly experienced in section 21A applications, section 16 applications, capacity disputes, contested final hearings, and fact-finding hearings. He also has experience of cases where there is an overlap between the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Mental Health Act 1983. He has a keen interest in health and welfare matters, having studied medical and mental capacity law at post-graduate level. His practice benefits from his clinical negligence work and his experience in dealing with parties that lack capacity arising out of injuries. Tom takes a collaborative approach and is willing to advise informally from the outset.

Tom has also delivered training on:

Fluctuating capacity;
Applications in Serious Medical Treatment cases; and
Best interests decision making.

Recent medical treatment cases include:

Representing an NHS Trust in an application to prevent P from discharging himself from hospital after sustaining a brain injury in a road traffic accident.
Representing a local authority in a matter before the Vice President of the Court of Protection. P had a fear of hospitals and the NHS Trust sought to detain and convey P to undergo a CT scan and possible surgery for suspected cancer. There was a concern that the proposals would unravel the rapport that P had established with the carers commissioned by the local authority.
Advising a family whose daughter was in a permanent disorder of consciousness following an allegedly negligent delay in responding to concerns raised regarding the daughter’s shunt. There was a dispute between the family as to whether there were signs of recovery and whether clinically assisted nutrition and hydration should be withdrawn.
Representing P in a section 21A application which developed into a medical treatment matter due to P needing to undergo surgery before his functional capability could be determined. He lacked capacity regarding medical treatment and P had a history of refusing to attend hospital on the day of the procedure.
Representing a mental health NHS Trust in proceedings concerning a patient detained in an acute hospital under the Mental Health Act with suspected ovarian cancer. P refused to be seen by any professional, and declarations were sought from the acute NHS Trusts to authorise restraint for radiological investigations and surgery, if recommended.
Advising an NHS Trust on the merits of issuing an application to authorise restraint to facilitate treatment for a diabetic patient under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Recent general welfare matters include:

Representing P in a contested final hearing concerning capacity. P had emotionally unstable personality disorder, and the jointly instructed expert concluded that she lacked capacity to make decisions regarding her care and residence on a longitudinal basis. Following cross-examination, the expert changed her view and agreed that P now had capacity in those domains.
Representing an ICB in a matter concerning complex discharge planning for a patient with severe mental health needs and who was a high risk of suicide / death by misadventure. The hospital trust was pushing for an urgent discharge.
Representing the mother of P in a matter where P was removed from the family home due to allegations that Tom’s client had deliberately over-administered sedative medications to control P’s challenging behaviours.
Representing an ICB in a matter concerning P’s capacity to engage in sexual relations and whether his paraphilic infantilism was a “sexual activity” for the purposes of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Representing P in a matter where the local authority had unlawfully deprived her of her liberty by wrongly relying on a best interests assessment and interim declarations regarding capacity as the “capacity assessment” for the purposes of granting a standard authorisation.
Representing a local authority in a contested hearing concerning whether P should return home to live with her husband on a trial basis (MA v Gateshead Council and others [2024] EWCOP 34 (T1).
Representing P in a five-day fact-finding hearing. P had received a large personal injury settlement following a brain injury whilst under the care of the local authority. P was living in a large rental property with his family and there were allegations that P’s mother was jeopardising his care arrangements and risked the family being evicted.
Jointly representing a local authority and an ICB in a matter before HHJ Hilder, where P was living with the family and had destructive behaviours. His behaviours put others in the family home at risk, including P’s brother and grandmother. His attachment to the family meant that finding an alternative placement was difficult, and there were ongoing disputes between the family and the public bodies as to what placements were available and could be funded.
Representing an ICB in a matter concerning whether to authorise P to travel abroad for a wedding, despite previous orders limiting contact with family who would be present.
Representing an ICB in a matter where P’s placement had served notice. P had severe neurological disabilities following a road traffic accident, and there were limited alternative placements to consider. The matter involved issues regarding P’s mother’s behaviour towards care staff (cited as the cause for the placement breakdown) and the validity of lasting powers of attorney created after P’s brain injury.
Representing a local authority in proceedings concerning a dispute with P’s family regarding P’s support needs, whether the family providing the care was in P’s best interests, and whether to introduce an external care provider (opposed by P’s family).

Tom undertakes a broad range of property & affairs matters in the Court of Protection. He accepts instructions from all interested parties, including the Office of the Public Guardian, Local Authorities, P, and family members. He regularly appears in applications regarding the mismanagement of P’s funds and removing deputies and attorneys.

Recent matters include:

Representing the OPG in numerous cases involving disputes over P’s capacity to execute the LPAs and whether attorneys had breached their duties under the MCA.
Representing a local authority in a disputed application to become P’s deputy for property & financial affairs.
Representing the OPG in an application to remove P’s deputies for failing to comply with the deputyship order.
Representing the OPG in an application to remove one of two attorneys on the grounds of financial mismanagement.
Representing the named attorney in an application brought by the OPG to revoke her appointment. The application centred on P’s capacity to execute the LPAs.
Representing the OPG in a contested final hearing concerning whether a family member should be appointed as the deputy for P’s property and affairs. The matter involved partnership disputes, the family member allegedly profiting from P being removed from the family home, and a dispute with P’s former partner.
Representing a local authority in a mixed health & welfare and property & affairs matter, concerning a dispute over whether LPAs were validly executed and whether the parents were appropriately managing P’s finances.
Representing the co-owner of P’s property in proceedings concerning whether and how to sell P’s share in the property to pay for her future care needs.

“Tom Barclay-Semple is exceptionally intelligent and hard-working. He goes the extra mile for clients and has very good knowledge of inquests and procedures and laws.” Chambers and Partners 2026

“His attention to detail is amazing, and the advice he follows up with is always thorough. Tom is an overall great barrister. Clients love him.” Chambers and Partners 2026

“Tom is fabulous on his feet at inquests; he is knowledgeable and compassionate in equal measure.” The Legal 500 2025

“He has a meticulous approach, and puts his clients at ease with his calm, professional manner.” The Legal 500 2024

“Tom manages complex material meticulously and is a naturally confident and authoritative advocate. Behind a courteous and professional court manner lies an unshakeable commitment to the client’s interests.” The Legal 500 2023

“Tom has a very methodical approach to cases. He can communicate with the client in a way they understand and makes them feel at ease.” The Legal 500 2022

Tom is primarily instructed in relation to healthcare-related deaths in various settings, including hospitals, prisons, care homes, and in the community. He also accepts instructions concerning deaths in the workplace and road traffic fatalities. He is experienced in drafting submissions, advising on strategy, pre-inquest reviews and final hearings.

Recent matters include:

Re CG: A five-day Article 2 inquest with a jury concerning the death of a young adult with autism and an eating disorder whilst detained under the Mental Health Act. Tom represented the NHS Trust operating the acute hospital. The deceased died through malnutrition, and Tom successfully resisted a finding of neglect being made against the hospital.
Re OM: An inquest concerning the death of a woman who was wrongly declared deceased by the attending paramedics. She was later found to be alive in the mortuary and was transferred to ITU, but sadly died thereafter. The inquest focuses on whether the death was contributed to by the delay in providing emergency life-saving treatment.
Re HJP: An inquest concerning a neonatal death, where it was admitted that there had been a delay in recognising that the mother had sepsis. Tom represented the NHS Trust, and successfully resisted arguments that the failures amounted to neglect and that Article 2 should be engaged.
Re BB: A six-day Article 2 inquest with a jury concerning the death of a prisoner, known to be at risk of suicide. It was established that several scheduled checks were not completed prior to the death. Tom represented the deceased’s family.
Re LB: A five-day inquest in which Tom represented the deceased’s family. It concerned the development of pressure sores, which became infected and caused sepsis. Tom was able to highlight multiple failings across different hospitals that contributed to the development of the fatal pressure damage, resulting in a finding of neglect. The NHS Trust subsequently admitted liability in the clinical negligence claim.
Re LS: Tom represented an NHS Trust in a matter concerning the death of a member of the public by one of the Trust’s patients. The patient had epilepsy and it was believed that the death was caused during a state of automatism following a seizure. The inquest explored whether the Trust could have done more to control the patient’s epilepsy. No adverse findings were made against Tom’s client.
Re RY: An eleven-day inquest with a jury concerning the death of a pedestrian struck by collapsing rubble from the facade of a building on the high street. The inquest touched upon the various roles and responsibilities of the interested parties under the CDM regulations and how the wall came to be constructed without wind restraints 14 years prior to its collapse. Tom represented a structural engineer engaged on the project. The conclusion was ‘accidental death’ and no adverse findings were made against Tom’s client.
Re AA: A three-day inquest involving a death following a fall in a care home, where the coroner concluded that the death would have been avoidable had the care home carried out risk assessments. Tom acted on behalf of the family. The inquest was followed by the first successful CQC prosecution of a local authority, where the authority admitted failing to provide safe care and treatment.
Re SD: A three-day Article 2 inquest with a jury concerning the death of a psychiatric patient on permitted leave in a community placement. The inquest involved questions over the communication between the placement, the local authority, and SD’s treating clinicians as regards his immediate risk of suicide or death by misadventure. Tom represented the local authority and the jury’s conclusion included no adverse findings against Tom’s client.
Re DH: A three-day Article 2 inquest with a jury concerning the death of an inmate due to methadone toxicity. Tom represented the deceased’s family. The jury concluded that the prison officers’ failure to carry out routine welfare checks contributed to the death.
Re MAP: A four-day inquest concerning a neonatal death. The inquest explored the impact of failing to consider medical records regarding previous pregnancies and delays in converting to an emergency caesarean section. Tom represented the family. It was concluded that delays in converting to an emergency caesarean contributed to the death.
Re PT: A two-day inquest concerning the management of the deceased’s toxic epidermal necrolysis. The inquest revealed that the deceased was cared for on a ward where clinicians had no experience in dermatology and national guidance for transferring the deceased to a specialist tertiary centre was not followed. Tom represented the family.
Re PH: A three-day inquest concerning the death of a patient with dementia who had been injured in a road traffic accident, after he managed to leave a hospital ward without the staff noticing. The coroner concluded that the failures of the nursing staff amounted to neglect and this contributed to the death. Tom acted on behalf of the deceased’s family.

“Tom has been absolutely excellent at representing clients. His attention to detail is amazing and advice he follows up with is always thorough.” Chambers and Partners 2026

“Tom is an excellent barrister. He provides logical solutions and has excellent medical knowledge.” Chambers and Partners 2026

“Tom has an exceptional eye for detail and outstanding client empathy.” The Legal 500 2026

“Tom is an excellent tactician. He puts both clients and experts at ease, and always has a fantastic understanding of complex medical issues, largely down to his meticulous and forensic approach.” The Legal 500 2025

“Tom is extremely approachable and likeable. He takes a pragmatic and practical approach to cases, and he will look at a matter from all angles.” The Legal 500 2024

“Tom has an incredible mind for detail and medicine. He is excellent in conferences with experts and his communication skills are exemplary.” The Legal 500 2023

“Tom is incredibly thorough and his medical understanding is excellent. He has a very methodical approach to cases. Very down to earth with the clients.” The Legal 500 2022

Tom acts on behalf of patients, hospital trusts, GP practices and individual practitioners. He has experience in drafting statements of case, advising on prospects and quantum, CCMCs, JSMs/RTMs, and inquests involving suggestions of clinical negligence. His practice benefits from his experience in a busy clinical negligence department at a leading law firm before coming to the bar. He is happy to advise in matters on an informal basis, particularly in the early stages of claims.

Tom’s practice covers all areas of clinical negligence, including orthopaedic surgery, obstetrics, diabetes management, emergency care, mental health, dental, nursing and residential care.

Recent matters include:

Representing an NHS Trust in a claim concerning an alleged failure to diagnose melanoma in a young woman, resulting in her premature death. The matter involved factual disputes over what clinical signs were present to warrant further investigations and how to value any future dependency claim. The matter settled amicably at mediation.
Representing the family of a young woman who died after a negligent failure to diagnose and treat a pulmonary embolism. Tom represented the family in the inquest and then advised on the value of the civil claim, including a substantial dependency claim on behalf of the deceased’s partner. The claim has since settled.
Representing the defendant NHS Trust in proceedings concerning a provisional damages award, arising out of an alleged failure to manage the claimant’s intra-ocular pressure and creating a risk of blindness. The claim settled on a lump-sum basis.
Representing a claimant in a matter concerning a delay in diagnosing Hodgkin’s lymphoma, resulting in an unnecessary parotidectomy. Tom advised on liability and quantum, and the claim settled in line with Tom’s advice.
Representing a claimant in proceedings concerning an alleged delay in diagnosing a cancerous lesion in the claimant’s knee, resulting in a knee reconstruction and a significant functional impairment. The claim settled in line with Tom’s advice.
Representing the defendant GP in proceedings concerning a failure to urgently refer the claimant for haematological advice, allegedly causing the claimant to suffer a stroke. The claim was listed for a five-day trial in the High Court but settled in line with Tom’s advice.
Advising a claimant on quantum where the claimant was given ten times the recommended dose of anti-epileptic medication.
Advising the defendant NHS Trust on prospects on paper and in conference with multiple experts in a claim concerning the management of a diabetic foot injury. Tom attended the CCMC and then successfully resisted the claimant’s application to amend the Particulars of Claim before trial. The claimant discontinued shortly thereafter.
Representing the defendant NHS Trust in a joint settlement meeting in a matter arising out of alleged dental negligence.
Advising a claimant in conference on prospects and quantum, and thereafter drafting the Particulars of Claim, regarding injuries arising from a failure to identify red flag symptoms of cauda equina syndrome. The claim settled shortly after it was issued.
Advising the defendant NHS Trust on prospects and quantum, and drafting the Counter Schedule of Loss, in a claim concerning an alleged failure to offer early revascularisation of the patient’s leg, causing amputation. The claim settled in line with Tom’s advice.
Representing a claimant in a matter where it was alleged that the defendant NHS Trust had negligently proceeded to a re-look laparotomy following an elective caesarean section when the claimant complained of ongoing abdominal pain. The claimant was left with a reduced functional capacity, due to a permanently weakened abdominal wall causing chronic pain. The matter involved multiple expert disciplines and liability was disputed throughout. The claim settled in line with Tom’s advice.
Representing the defendant NHS Trust in proceedings concerning an allegedly negligent delay in diagnosing breast cancer, causing reduced life expectancy and PTSD. The claim was heavily contested, and settled comfortably below the client’s reserve.

Tied to his Court of Protection and Inquests practice, Tom advises public bodies, including local authorities and the NHS, on public law matters including:

Ordinary Residence disputes
Section 117 Aftercare funding
NHS Continuing Healthcare and Funded Nursing Care
Deprivation of assets to avoid care costs under the Care Act 2014
Healthcare decision-making under the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005

Recent matters include:

Advising a local authority in a long-standing dispute over Ordinary Residence, pre-dating the Care Act 2014.
Advising and representing various NHS CCGs (as they then were) in proceedings concerning the failure to provide NHS Continuing Healthcare.
Advising a local authority on Ordinary Residence in a cross-border matter.
Advising a local authority on debt recoverability from a third party under the Care Act 2014.
Advising an NHS Trust on treatment decisions that could be made without consent under the Mental Health Act 1983.
Advising a local authority regarding direct payments and when such payments are an appropriate method of meeting care needs.

For enquiries please contact

James Mason
0113 203 1141
Email

Ede & Ravenscroft Pupillage Award (Inner Temple, 2016)
Personal Injury & Clinical Negligence Prize (Leeds & District Medico-Legal Society / BPP University, 2016)
Exhibition Award (Inner Temple, 2015)
Regional BPTC Leader’s Scholarship (BPP University, 2014)
RG Lawson Prize (University of Manchester, 2012)

BPTC, BPP Law School (2016)
LLM (Distinction), Healthcare Ethics and Law, The University of Manchester (2013)
LLB (Hons), The University of Manchester (2012)

Personal Injury Bar Association (PIBA)
Professional Negligence Bar Association (PNBA)
Action against Medical Accidents (AvMA)
Leeds & District Medico-Legal Society
Court of Protection Practitioners Association (CoPPA)
Court of Protection Bar Association (CPBA)
The Honourable Society of the Inner Temple

Chambers and Partners (2026) – Inquests & Public Inquiries (Band 3) – “Tom Barclay-Semple is exceptionally intelligent and hard-working. He goes the extra mile for clients and has very good knowledge of inquests and procedures and laws.” “His attention to detail is amazing, and the advice he follows up with is always thorough. Tom is an overall great barrister. Clients love him.”

Chambers and Partners (2026) – Clinical Negligence (Up and Coming) – “Tom has been absolutely excellent at representing clients. His attention to detail is amazing and advice he follows up with is always thorough.” “Tom is an excellent barrister. He provides logical solutions and has excellent medical knowledge.”

Chambers and Partners (2026) – Court of Protection: Health & Welfare (Up and Coming) – “Excellent technical expertise and pragmatic approach. Tom is also very personable and well-liked by clients.” “Tom has excellent legal knowledge with insightful analysis and strategic thinking.”

The Legal 500 (2026) – Clinical Negligence (Tier 2) – “Tom has an exceptional eye for detail and outstanding client empathy.”

The Legal 500 (2026) – Inquest & Inquiries (Tier 2)

The Legal 500 (2026) – Court of Protection, Health and Welfare (Tier 1)

Chambers and Partners (2025) – Inquests & Public Inquiries (Up and Coming) – “Tom is exceptionally hard-working and incredibly attentive to detail. His knowledge of clinical negligence inquests is near second to none.” “Tom is a very effective in hearings. He has a very good manner with witnesses, keeping his questions clear, but he doesn’t let them get out of difficult points. He keeps his opposition on their toes.” “Tom is thoroughly prepared, tenacious and an excellent advocate. He has a level of ability way beyond his years of call and is destined for great things. He’s also an all-round nice guy!” “Tom is a very approachable barrister who quickly puts the family at ease. He gets to the nub of the issues post-haste, and his advocacy skills are strong.”

The Legal 500 (2025) – Clinical Negligence (Tier 2) – “Tom is an excellent tactician. He puts both clients and experts at ease, and always has a fantastic understanding of complex medical issues, largely down to his meticulous and forensic approach.”

The Legal 500 (2025) – Inquests and Inquiries (Tier 2) – “Tom is fabulous on his feet at inquests; he is knowledgeable and compassionate in equal measure.”

The Legal 500 (2025) – Court of Protection and Community Care (Tier 2) – “Tom is concise, always thoroughly prepared and excellent on his feet. An approachable junior.”

The Legal 500 (2024) – Clinical Negligence (Rising Star) – “Tom is extremely approachable and likeable. He takes a pragmatic and practical approach to cases, and he will look at a matter from all angles.”

The Legal 500 (2024) – Inquests and Inquiries (Rising Star) – “He has a meticulous approach, and puts his clients at ease with his calm, professional manner.”

The Legal 500 (2024) – Court of Protection and Community Care (Rising Star) – “Tom is adept at picking through swathes of complex information and offering proportionate and pragmatic advice. He is very personable and seems to have an innate ability to get the judge on side.”

The Legal 500 (2023) – Clinical Negligence (Rising Star) – “Tom has an incredible mind for detail and medicine. He is excellent in conferences with experts and his communication skills are exemplary.”

The Legal 500 (2023) – Inquests and Inquiries (Rising Star) – “Tom manages complex material meticulously and is a naturally confident and authoritative advocate. Behind a courteous and professional court manner lies an unshakeable commitment to the client’s interests.”

The Legal 500 (2023) – Court of Protection and Community Care (Rising Star) – “An excellent junior whose year of call belies his expertise and tactical sense. Tom is an effective advocate who has a good presence in court and is well liked by clients for his tenacity and calm manner.”

The Legal 500 (2022) – Clinical Negligence (Rising Star) – “Tom is incredibly thorough and his medical understanding is excellent. He has a very methodical approach to cases. Very down to earth with the clients.”

The Legal 500 (2022) – Inquests and Inquiries (Rising Star) – “Tom has a very methodical approach to cases. He can communicate with the client in a way they understand and makes them feel at ease.”

R (Carole Smith) v HM Assistant Coroner for North West Wales: Causation, admitted failings and what to record in the Record of Inquest

Legal Update by Tom Semple, 21st April 2020

Tom Barclay-Semple

Expertise

Related News