Professor Cam Wareham

Arbitration approach

Cam appears on several panels, including the WIPO, AMINZ, ICC, CIArb, Arb Ireland, SCC, Cayman and Abu Dhabi Panels.  He is also on the specialist roster for the American Healthcare Lawyers Dispute Resolution scheme.

Cam’s approach is to be proactive with formal procedural matters, ensuring that flexibility to the parties’ requirements is key.  He takes his role seriously and commits time and effort to each case, ensuring that he is not over committed or unavailable. Cam has a specialist knowledge in the Life Science and Healthcare sectors meaning that he has a unique skillset with a working knowledge of the dispute in addition to the legal framework. Confidentiality is important as is Independence and Impartiality. Cam is robust in managing ‘tactical’ strategy in arbitration, ensuring that parties are treated equally and fairly. Despite his specialist skillset, Cam is equally adept at matters of a more general civil or commercial nature and as such holds a diverse caseload.

Mediation Style

Cam holds both CMC and Scottish Mediation accredited qualifications having been trained in all theoretical forms of mediation for commercial / civil mediation. He is often asked to mediate disputes in the Life Science and Healthcare sectors. He is a WIPO, ICC, AMINZ and CIArb accredited mediator. Cam is registered with the Hunt ADR Panels, Cayman, Abu Dhabi, SCC Panels and works closely with Trust Mediation on NHS Resolution mediations. He believes that parties to mediation strive for different outcomes. His role is to narrow areas of disagreement and bring consensus where possible. Cam is fearless in his pursuit of ‘reality checking’ positions, using an ‘interests-based’ approach. He is known for his tenacity in pursuit of resolution.

Cam is very strong in the management and resolution of civil disputes. He has mediated and represented numerous disputes related to clinical and professional negligence before domestic courts in several jurisdictions. Cam has significant experience and deep understanding of regulatory frameworks and compliance. He is sensitive to issues of power imbalance and disputes between large employer and hospital systems such as the NHS and other national hospital systems. Additionally, he has significant experience in the litigation of personal injury and clinical injury before the High Court in England and Wales.

Cam is considered as a ‘powerhouse’ in the defense of clinical practice, frequently being called upon for his expert opinion work.

He is very familiar with the mediation of partnership and licensing or service contract disputes on both small scale and larger scale, affecting those on NHS contracted provider lists as well as those who undertake the representation of significant and sizeable professional groups. Cam has been effective in his use of mediation as a strategy to assist those who require an ongoing professional relationship. 

His other work includes sitting as sole arbitrator in commercial disputes. Cam has experience in arbitrating several claims related to the travel industry, claims of related personal injury and loss of enjoyment and diminution of value. He has acted as sole arbitrator in relation to contractual disputes of a financial nature and those where service provision has been contested.

Cam is able to dispose of disputes through ‘desktop’ analysis on papers alone, expedited proceedings and those under specific schemes and rules. His approach to parties is one of ‘farness’ often appreciating the imbalance of power between parties. Mindful of the need to assess matters on merit, Cam is adept at dealing with highly charged and emotional parties, especially where claims are of significant value or are of a ‘high stake’. He handles oral testimony well, and manages parties with a friendly but form approach, ‘reality checking’ positions and challenging evidence where required. His decisions and opinion are known for being fair and balanced.

“Cam is helpful, knowledgeable, and empathetic. He has a great knowledge of process and litigation, especially within healthcare – I would not hesitate to recommend him to any of my colleagues”. Defendant in a clinical claim

One of Cam’s strengths is around discipline and professional negligence. He currently sits as a Panel member of the Professional Conduct Committee for the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and is a Chair of the Hertfordshire Rugby Football Union’s Disciplinary Committee. He has appaired before the Health and Care Professions Council Regulator and was the Chair of the Professional Conduct Committee and Clinical Govern Committee for the Australian Association of Podiatric Surgeons.

Cam has heard a large volume of cases concerning fitness to practice, negligence and concerns of misconduct. He is regularly asked to determine or advise on cases related to professional discipline and practice across several jurisdictions. Cam is sensitive and publicly minded in his approach, balancing the need to maintain public confidence in the professions as well as being mindful of the impact of regulatory proceedings on individual practitioners and professionals.

In his role as a Disciplinary Chair, Cam has dealt with numerous cases of foul play, referee and official abuse, spectator abuse, coach-child safeguarding issues and poor sportsmanship. Cam is knowledgeable across a wide range of concerns having played and later refereed Rugby Union at county level. His clinical and medical science background give him significant insight to anti-doping, EPA enhancement and conduct proceedings.

His approach is to be fair but firm. He has an excellent grasp of various laws of conduct and procedure. He is known to be.

“Cam is quick to grasp the matter. He asks precise and pertinent questions of witnesses. He is compassionate of the young or ‘community’ player but above all he is fair”.  HRFU Panel Member

“Cam was pivotal to my case before the HCPC. He understood the gravity of the proceedings and was fearless in his representation of me”. Professional Conduct Proceedings Defendant.

Experience

Arbitration

•  CC v RR (International Arb Case): Appointed under CIArb rules and AA 1996, Seat (England). Sole Arbitrator appointed to determine issue of performance and breach of contract (Finance). Issues of party misconduct and failure to provide evidence featured heavily.

•  CC v RR (International Arb Case): Appointed under CIArb rules and AA 1996, Seat (England). Sole Arbitrator appointed to determine issue of performance and breach of contract. Procedural order, disclosure schedule followed by settlement – Award and Agreement by consent.

•  CC v RR (International -Ad Hoc): Arbitration under UNCITRAL rules to determine claims relating to respondents’ failure to supply goods, counter claim (fraud) and multiple personae. Settled following issue of Procedural Order.

•  CC v RR (International - Ad Hoc): CIArb exam Arbitration under UNICTRAL model rules, Construction and failure of design and build project. Issues of jurisdiction, Bifurcation of proceedings. Contested hearing and issues of admissibility of Evidence, and award rendered to Claimant with interest.

•  CC v RR Ltd (ABTA- Domestic): Under the ABTA Arbitration Rules & Arbitration Act 1996, claim for misrepresentation and breach of contract, specific performance. Award to Respondent.

•  CC v RR (ABTA- Domestic): Under the ABTA Arbitration Rules & Arbitration Act 1996, claim for breach of contract, specific performance. Award to Claimant.

•  CC v RR (ABTA- Domestic): Under the ABTA Arbitration Rules & Arbitration Act 1996, claim for breach of contract, specific performance. Procedural award and Partial Award to Claimant.

•  CC v RR (ABTA- Domestic): Under the ABTA Arbitration Rules & Arbitration Act 1996, claim for breach of contract, specific performance, Personal Injury. Award to Respondent.

•  CC v RR (ABTA- Domestic): Under the ABTA Arbitration Rules & Arbitration Act 1996, claim for breach of contract, specific performance. Nuisance. Award to Respondent.

•  CC v RR (ABTA- Domestic): Under the ABTA Arbitration Rules & Arbitration Act 1996, claim for breach of contract, specific performance. Nuisance. Award to Claimant.

•   CC v RR (ABTA- Domestic): Under the ABTA Arbitration Rules & Arbitration Act 1996, Travel Regulations 2018, claim for breach of contract, specific performance, Loss of Enjoyment, Lack of Continuity, Multiple claims for Injury. Award to Claimant.

•   CC v RR (ABTA- Domestic): Under the ABTA Arbitration Rules & Arbitration Act 1996, Travel Regulations 2018, claim for breach of contract, specific performance, Loss of Enjoyment, Lack of Continuity, Award to Respondent.

•   CC v RR (ABTA- Domestic): Under the ABTA Arbitration Rules & Arbitration Act 1996, Travel Regulations 2018, claim for breach of contract, specific performance, Loss of Enjoyment, Lack of Continuity, Award to Respondent.

Mediation

·    Cam has mediated several disputes, frequently related to healthcare, however not exclusively ‘medical’. Mediation skills include both Facilitative and Evaluative approaches.

•    P1 v P2 (NHS): Appointed to mediate (NHS Resolution) Commissioned by the NHS to mediate a case currently in litigation regarding failed foot surgery. Partial liability already admitted, quantum was at issue. Issues successfully narrowed to allow parties to concentrate on possible approaches to resolution.

•    P1 v P2 (NHS): Appointed by Respondent and Claimant (jointly - Ad Hoc) to mediate a claim of poor care following RTA and fracture failure to heal. Multiple heads of claim with quantum spanning multiple facets of projected disability. Parties settled on compensation and quantum 48 hours later.

•     P1 -Surgical College (Aus) v P2 Surgical College (Aus): Appointed by parties to mediate a long (20 year) dispute, with 3 failed attempts to merge. Heads of issues related to Personas, reserved Positions on the Board, Educational process. Mediation over 2-day period with multiple representations. The merger went ahead following 2 failed MOU attempts six months later.

•    P1 Employee (NHS) v P1 Employee (NHS). Inter-departmental conflict mediation with 2 HoD’s. Mediation (half day) involved discussion on case mix, allocation of operating space and resources and training experiences. Solutions and pathways created with disputants agreeing resource sharing.

•     P1 x2 NHS Consultants v P2 (Independent Hospital) Management Team. Mediation of grievance, unfair restrictive practice and overly punitive response to settled complaint. Mediation involved reality testing, grievance development and reframing. Parties settled on agreed pathways of care and restoration of practice rights.

•    University - Australia: Employee workplace mediation. Senior staff members in conflict over allegations of bullying and harassment, unfair treatment and complaints against Fair-work Australia principles. Evaluative mediation and outcomes over a half day mediation.

Regulatory (Expert Opinion & Consultation)

·    NHS Trust v Anon:  Commissioned by the NHS to investigate and opine on a large series of complaints against a Consultant Surgeon (13 separate complaints) for clinical mismanagement and adventure, resulting in Disciplinary action against the practitioner.

·   HPDT and DJ v P (NZ): Instructed to opine by Counsel in a Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal action against a practitioner who was subject to a large series (5 specimen) complaints of clinical negligence and Fitness to Practice, resulting in dismissal from the Register.

·   NHS trust v Anon: Commissioned by the NHS to investigate and opine regarding a complaint of negligence against an individual Consultant, resulting in the successful denial of allegations.

·   P1 v P2 with the Pvt Hospital Group: Commissioned by the MAC and Clinical Governance Lead to investigate and determine a complaint against a Consultant for negligence and inappropriate billing, leading to a settlement to the complainant.

·   HCPC v P: Instructed by Counsel in the defense of a practitioner who faced (27counts) Allegations of Sexual Misconduct. In a hearing lasting 28 days, the practitioner was acquitted of all charges brought against him following Expert Testimony of Intimate examination technique. The Registrant went on to be acquitted in the parallel criminal action.

·    Surgical College v P1: (Aus) Chair of the Clinical Governance investigation committee in a case against a registered practitioner who faced 4 allegations of negligence, with 2 findings upheld the case was referred to AHPRA for determination.

·    Surgical College v P1: (Aus) Chair of the Clinical Governance investigation committee in a case against a registered practitioner who faced 2 allegations of negligence, with no findings upheld the case was dismissed.

·    Surgical College v P1: (Aus) Chair of the Clinical Governance investigation committee in a case against a registered practitioner who faced 1 allegation of negligence, with no findings upheld the case was dismissed with comments regarding future practice.

Clinical Negligence (Expert Opinion)

·    C1 v NHS: (Wales) Instructed to determine and advise on allegation of negligence and failure to diagnose, resulting in partial liability and settlement.

·   C1 v NHS: (Wales) Instructed to determine and advise on allegations of negligence resulting in loss of limb, which were successfully defended by the Trust.

·   C1 v P1: (Aus) Instructed for claimant in an allegation of negligence resulting in permanent disability and non-union of joint surgery. Expert opinion assisted in securing a successful claim.

·    C1 v P1: (Aus) Instructed by claimant in an allegation of negligence and unnecessary ‘cosmetic’ foot surgery. Expert opinion assisted in securing a successful claim and settlement.

·    P1 v C1: (Aus) Instructed in an allegation of negligence and failed foot surgery. Expert opinion assisted in defending against several spurious and poorly argued claims.

·    C1 v NHS: Instructed in a long running and high value claim against an NHS department regarding the failed foot surgery to correct a Diabetic Foot deformity. Expert opinion and oral testimony resulted in partial liability and reduced settlement.

·    C1 v NHS: Instructed in a case regarding failed foot surgery and loss of digit in a child. Resulting in a successful claim and compensation.

·    C1 v P1: Instructed in a claim of misdiagnosis, failure to refer and loss of limb against a practitioner Podiatrist. This case turned on interpretation of NICE Guidelines and failure to follow good practice. Resulting in a successful claim to restore and compensate the claimant. 

·    C1 v NHS Trust: Instructed in a claim of failed foot surgery, negligence and failure to heal. Expert opinion assisted in successfully resisting most claims brought against the Trust.