Rory Badenoch

Clinical Negligence

Rory specialises in complex cases involving clinical negligence and is regularly instructed on behalf of Claimants and Defendants.

He is ranked in Chambers and Partners for Clinical Negligence 2025:

• “Rory Badenoch is a stand-out junior in clinical negligence cases and a go-to for representation at inquests. He is passionate about representing clients and helping them to access justice.”(2025)
• “Rory is incredibly good at analysing the detail of the case. He’s got a very superior analytical brain and he can really get through complex issues” (2025)
• “Rory is very much a star of the future. He has a very good way with client and clearly reads the papers in detail beforehand.”(2025)
• “Rory is very hands-on and takes ownership. He is very efficient and gets the cases moving very quickly. He can be a real fighter, and he doesn’t back down easily.” (2025)

He is also ranked in the Legal 500 for both Clinical Negligence and Inquests:

• “Immense attention to detail and extremely thorough” (2025)
• “Rory doesn’t miss a single detail, every stone will be uncovered and he will do all that he can to get the best result for the client.” (2025)
• “A junior with excellent client care skills” (2024)
• “A junior with a reassuring demeanour who is superb when questioning witnesses.”  (2024).
• “Rory has come into his own in the last few years; he can deal with the most complex of cases with a calm and reassuring manner. His judgment is exceptional when considering difficult points of law and the advice he gives to clients” (2023)

Rory has considerable expertise in claims ranging from misdiagnosis / delayed diagnosis of cancer, negligently performed surgery, negligent radiological reporting, negligent obstetric and neonatal care, and failure to obtain informed consent.

He also has considerable experience handling fatal claims arising from delayed diagnosis of cancer; delayed diagnosis of sepsis; suicide following negligent psychiatric management; administration of inappropriate antibiotic prophylaxis; negligent midwifery / paediatric and / or neonatal care; the administration of unindicated drugs; delayed treatment / failure to follow clinical pathways.

Selected Cases

• £1.95 million on behalf of a consultant surgeon who suffered a nerve injury as a result of negligently performed surgery.
• £1.18 million on behalf of a client who suffered extensive injuries as a result of delayed diagnosis and treatment of cauda equina syndrome.
• £1 million on behalf of a client who suffered delayed diagnosis of lung adenocarcinoma resulting in a significant reduction in life expectancy.
• £900,000 on behalf of the dependents of the deceased who took his life as a result of failures adequately to diagnose, manage and treat his presenting mental health issues and admit him to hospital.
• £900,000 on behalf of a teenager whose infected hip joint was not diagnosed resulting in premature hip replacement.
• £750,000 on behalf of a client who suffered delayed diagnosis of cancer due to misreported cervical smear tests.
• £650,000 on behalf of a client who had suffered delayed diagnosis and treatment of a bowel perforation during a routine colonoscopy resulting in permanent colostomy.
• £607,000 on behalf of a client who suffered a below knee amputation as a consequence of a delay in performing vascular surgery.
• £600,000 on behalf of a woman who sustained significant muscle necrosis and neurological damage, resulting in impaired sensation and neuropathic pain and the loss of most of the muscle of her lower leg.
• £500,000 on behalf of a client who underwent a subtotal colectomy and end ileostomy as a result of a failure to adequately investigate her symptoms and diagnose Crohn’s disease and obtain her informed consent for surgery.
• £450,000 on behalf of the dependants of the deceased who took his own life due to a negligent failure adequately to assess, manage and monitor his suicide risk whilst a psychiatric inpatient.
• £450,000 on behalf of a client who lost the vision in one eye as a result of negligently performed cataract surgery.
• £400,000 on behalf of the dependents of the deceased who suffered hypoxic ischaemic brain injury, catastrophic bowel injury and ultimately death as a result of a failure to diagnose and treat bowel perforation in timely fashion.
• £353,000 on behalf of the dependents of the deceased who suffered severe brain damage and ultimately death as a result of a failure to identify and report the presence of an acute subdural haematoma [“ASDH”].
• £335,000 on behalf of a client who suffered a 7 year delay in diagnosis and treatment of a brain tumour as a result of a failure to adequately interpret an MRI scan.
• £200,000 on behalf of a bereaved mother who suffered an intrauterine death and stillbirth as a consequence of a failure to offer a caesarean section following, inter alia, reported reduced fetal movements and suspicious CTGs.
• £185,000 on behalf of a client who sustained an injury to the small bowel during  a laparoscopic hysterectomy necessitating laparotomy, ileostomy formation and reversal.
• £170,000 on behalf of a client who underwent an unnecessary and contra-indicated total laparoscopic hysterectomy for which she did not provide her informed consent, resulting in infertility and damage to her ureter.
•  £150,000 on behalf of the dependents of the deceased who died as a consequence of delayed diagnosis of malignant melanoma on his foot.
• £150,000 on behalf of a client who underwent an ACL reconstruction without obtaining her informed consent for the procedure.