Contact clerking team

Download Fiona's CV

Choose the Expertise to be included in the CV download:

Select all

Add to shortlist

Choose the Expertise to be included in the shortlist profile:

Select All

Privacy notice

Fiona Paterson KC

Year of call: 2003

Silk: 2023

“An excellent barrister, who is very well regarded by the judiciary…very experienced and great at cutting through issues …to get positive outcomes for clients” Chambers and Partners 2025
“…clear in her communication, very easy to get on with and excellent at working with clinicians…also a very fine advocate” Chambers and Partners 2025 
“…a fierce advocate and keen protector of the rights of vulnerable adults…can grapple with complex and novel legal issues” Legal 500 2025 
“… knowledgeable and extremely hard-working” Chambers and Partners 2024
“Brilliant written and oral submissions…Is always fully engaged with a case, no matter how big or small the issue is" Legal 500 2023

Before taking Silk Fiona was a member of the Attorney General’s A Panel of Junior Counsel.

She has appeared in a number of landmark cases before the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, representing vulnerable adults, children, NHS trusts and government departments, both with leading counsel and alone.

Described as a “delight to work with” and “very understanding of the client’s needs” Fiona was a solicitor for nine years specialising in all aspects of medical law before coming to the Bar.

She is also CEDR trained mediator and has mediated a wide variety of disputes both as a lead and assistant mediator.  

Areas of expertise

Court of Protection and Medical Treatment

“An excellent barrister, who is very well regarded by the judiciary…very experienced and great at cutting through issues …to get positive outcomes for clients” Chambers and Partners 2025
“…clear in her communication, very easy to get on with and excellent at working with clinicians…also a very fine advocate” Chambers and Partners 2025 
“…a fierce advocate and keen protector of the rights of vulnerable adults…can grapple with complex and novel legal issues” Legal 500 2025 
“She brings great authority…her breadth of experience is almost unrivalled when it comes to the Court of Protection” Chambers and Partners 2024 market commentator
“… one of the best barristers doing serious medical treatment work…She is very good at getting on top of enormous medical documents and identifying the right questions…” Chambers and Partners 2024 market commentator 

Fiona is ranked by both Chambers and Partners and The Legal 500 as a leading Silk in the Court of Protection. She has appeared before the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal in cases which have shaped the fundamental rights of vulnerable adults and children. 

She also contributed to the Vice President of the Court of Protection Guidance Note [2023] EWCOP 6 on closed hearings.

Cases of note

Supreme Court:

  • Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Ors v Abbasi and ors – Hearing 15 and 16 April 2024  – Supreme Court – judgment awaited (appeal from 2023] EWCA Civ 331 [2023] Fam 287) - Led by Gavin Millar KC in an appeal by two NHS Trusts against the Court of Appeal’s decision that reporting restrictions orders indefinitely prohibiting the identification of clinicians should be lifted. The doctors had been involved in the care of children, , whose life-sustaining treatment had been the subject of best interests proceedings in the High Court.
  • Re JB [2021] UKSC 52 [2022] AC 1322 - Led by Vikram Sachdeva KC and Richard Whittam KC. Represented a Local Authority in an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the local authority’s argument that the test for capacity to engage in sexual activity includes an understanding that a partner or potential partner must give consent which can be withdrawn at any time. 
  • Re Y [2018] UKSC 46 [2019] AC 978 - Led by Richard Gordon KC. Represented Y, through the Official Solicitor, a middle-aged man in a prolonged disorder of consciousness in an appeal to the Supreme Court. The court held that obtaining an order under the Mental Capacity Act is unnecessary where a family and treating clinicians agree that clinically assisted nutrition and hydration should be withdrawn from an incapacitous adult in a prolonged disorder of consciousness. 
  • Re N v A CCG [2017] UKSC 22, [2017] AC 549 - Led by Hugh Southey KC. Represented a Clinical Commissioning Group in a dispute with the family of a learning disabled young man about his care package. The Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of the Court of Protection was limited to decisions that the person who lacked capacity was unable to take for himself. A challenge to the decision of a public body, which affected an incapacitous adult, who fell within the Court of Protection’s jurisdiction should be made to the Administrative Court.

Court of Appeal:

  • Abbasi and Ors v Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 331 [2023] Fam 287 - Led by Gavin Millar KC – refer above
  • Dance v Barts Health NHS Trust [2022] EWCA Civ 1106 [2023] 1 FLR 765 – Appeared alone - Represented Barts Health NHS Trust before Court of Appeal who refused to grant the appellant’s application for a stay of an order authorising the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in respect of her 12-year-old son, pending the determination by the United Nations Committee for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities of her complaint alleging a breach of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by the UK.
  • Dance v Barts Health NHS Trust [2022] EWCA Civ 935 [2022] 4 WLR 83 - Led by Martin Westgate KC. Represented the NHS Trust in an appeal from a declaration of death by Arbuthnot J which was overturned.
  • Re C [2021] EWCA Civ 1527 [2022] Fam 265 - Led by Sir James Eadie KC and Sarah Hannett KC: Represented the Secretary of State for Justice in an appeal from the Court of Protection which was upheld by the Court of Appeal who determined that where care workers assist a learning-disabled young man to access a sex worker, they would commit an offence under s39 Sexual Offences Act 2003. 
  • Re P (Discharge of a party) [2021] EWCA Civ 512 [2021] 1 WLR 3098 - Appeared alone -Represented a young woman, through the Official Solicitor suffering serious mental health problems whose mother had been discharged as a party from proceedings in the Court of Protection, without notice, on the basis that her continued involvement in the proceedings would amount to an infringement of daughter’s privacy. First appeal to the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal using a closed procedure. Extensive examination of European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 6 and 8 rights.
  • Re AB (termination of a pregnancy) [2019] EWCA Civ 1215 – [2019] 1 WLR 5997 Appeared alone- Represented an NHS trust caring for a pregnant, learning-disabled young woman, AB who lacked capacity to consent to sex. Continuing with the pregnancy was thought to be harmful to AB. It was unclear if she understood the birth process and the implications of having a child. Yet she had stated she wanted the baby. The Court of Appeal examined how her best interests should be assessed in light of the conflicting evidence

Court of Protection - recent cases include:

  • Re AB [2024] EWCOP 62(T3) Instructed by the Official Solicitor to represent AB a seriously brain-injured woman in a prolonged disorder of consciousness in respect of application to withdraw her life-sustaining treatment. The Vice President of the Court of Protection gave guidance about the time frames in which decisions about life-sustaining treatment should be taken and a clear steer about how best interests should be approached in such cases.
  • Re PG [2024] EWCOP 49 (T3) Instructed by the Official Solicitor to represent PG, a woman with a gynaecological cancer who had refused to undergo treatment as a result of psychotic delusions. The court gave guidance as to when NHS Trusts should bring proceedings; using the timeframes prescribed by national clinical guidelines. 
  • London Borough of Southwark v P and Ors [2021] EWCOP 46 [2022] COPLR 408 - Represented a young woman, through the Official Solicitor, in a successful application to discharge her mother as a party to Court of Protection proceedings issued by the local authority over concerns that she had suffered severe neglect and alleged abuse at home. The daughter asserted that she felt unable to participate in the proceedings while her mother remained a party. The mother argued that her Article 8 rights would be infringed if she were no longer a party. The court held that where there was a conflict between the Article 8 rights of a vulnerable adult and those of a third party in the Court of Protection, the rights of the vulnerable adult must prevail.
  • Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership v WA and Ors [2020] EWCOP 37 – 
    Represented the applicant mental health trust caring for WA, a Palestinian refugee refusing nutrition and hydration as part of protest the SSHD’s) refusal to accept his date of birth. The CoP held that WA lacked capacity but must not be force fed, even though he may die. 
  • A City Council v LW and an NHS Social Care Partnership [2020] EWCOP 50 - Appeared for LW through the Official Solicitor who sought orders that contact between LW and her abusive partner should be stopped, even though, believed he was a spiritual guide with whom she could not live. The judge accepted that, even though this was a proportionate infringement of LW’s Article 8 rights. Guidance given on the application of the CPS’s guidance on domestic abuse in relation to vulnerable adults.

Administrative and Public

'"Brilliant written and oral submissions. Very knowledgeable in this area of law. Is always fully engaged with a case, no matter how big or small the issue is." The Legal 500 2023

A former member of the Attorney General’s A and C Panels, Fiona specialises in public law in a wide range of fields including human rights, mental health, mental capacity, social security benefits, the provision of health care and prisons.

Cases of note

  • Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Ors v Abbasi and ors – Hearing 15 and 16 April 2024 – Supreme Court – judgment awaited – [2023] EWCA Civ 331 [2023] Fam 287 - Led by Gavin Millar KC in an appeal by two NHS Trusts against the Court of Appeal’s decision that reporting restrictions orders indefinitely prohibiting the identification of clinicians should be lifted. The doctors had been involved in the care of children, whose life-sustaining treatment had been the subject of best interests proceedings in the High Court. 
  • Professional Standards Authority v General Medical Council and Onyekpe [2023] EWHC 2391 Admin - Represented the PSA in a statutory appeal to the High Court on the basis of under prosecution by the GMC of a doctor following a sexual relationship with a patient. The issue of the patient's vulnerability was not explored properly and the sanction was inadequate. Mr Justice Linden upheld the PSA's appeal and remitted the case for a re-hearing with additional charges addressing the patient's vulnerability and the doctor's knowledge of her vulnerability.
  • Article 39 v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Secretary of State for Education [2023] EWHC 1398 (Fam) - Represented the SSHD in an application brought by Article 39 a children's charity, to the Family Division of the High Court for the children, who had gone missing to be made "wards of court" pending a local authority taking charge of their care under the Children Act 2004. They argued that the children, who were exceptionally vulnerable, were in a "legal no man's land" and consequently the High Court should use its powers under the Inherent Jurisdiction to take charge of the children's care and in particular, to call the police to account. The application was dismissed.
  • Dance v Barts Health NHS Trust [2022] EWCA Civ 1106 [2023] 1 FLR 765 – Appeared alone - Represented Barts Health NHS Trust before Court of Appeal who refused to grant the appellant’s application for a stay of an order authorising the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in respect of her 12-year-old son, pending the determination by the United Nations Committee for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities of her complaint alleging a breach of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by the UK.
  • CK v JM v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2022] 122 (AAC) - Represented the SSWP along with Jack Anderson in an appeal before the Upper Tier Tribunal concerning the lawfulness of Regs 2(2) and 2(3) of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 (SI 2017/194). The appeal was dismissed on the basis that the government had consulted properly and fairly about the changes before they were introduced. And even though they resulted in hardship to certain claimants, the government had been entitled to make necessary savings in public spending. 
  • R v G and Secretary of Stage for the Home Department [2022] EWHC 655 [2022] 4 WLR 44 - Represented the SSHD in an application for the implementation of a return order made under the Hague Convention against a mother while her judicial review against an unsuccessful asylum application was pending. The High Court held that the return order could be implemented.
  • Re JB [2021] UKSC 52 [2022] AC 1322 - Led by Vikram Sachdeva KC and Richard Whittam KC. Represented a Local Authority in an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the local authority’s argument that the test for capacity to engage in sexual activity includes an understanding that a partner or potential partner must give consent which can be withdrawn at any time.
  • Re C [2021] EWCA Civ 1527 [2022] Fam 265 - Led by Sir James Eadie KC and Sarah Hannett KC: Represented the Secretary of State for Justice in an appeal from the Court of Protection which was upheld by the Court of Appeal who determined that where care workers assist a learning-disabled young man to access a sex worker, they would commit an offence under s39 Sexual Offences Act 2003.
  • FP Re P (An Adult) [2021] EWCA Civ 512 - Represented a young woman, through the Official Solicitor suffering serious mental health problems whose mother had been discharged as a party from proceedings in the Court of Protection, without notice, on the basis that her continued involvement in the proceedings would amount to an infringement of daughter’s privacy. First appeal to the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal using a closed procedure. Extensive examination of European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 6 and 8 rights.
  • Professional Standards Authority v HCPC and Yong [2021] EWHC 52 (Admin) - Represented the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care in an appeal to the High Court from a disciplinary panel of the Health and Care Professions Council. The court held that the panel had erred in finding that a social worker’s inappropriate behaviour towards six female colleagues was not behaviour “in a harassing manner” or sexually motivated. The panel had failed to consider that the council was subject to the public sector equality duty imposed by s149 of the Equality Act 2010 and had failed to consider the statutory definition of harassment in s26 of the Equality Act 2010. 
  • FP Cumbria Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust and Secretary of State for Justice v EG [2021] EWHC 2990 Fam - Represented the Secretary of State for Justice in an appeal by NHS trust and Secretary of State for Justice to Mrs Justice Lieven sitting as a judge in the High Court under the inherent jurisdiction and the Upper Tribunal in respect of EG, who had been conditionally discharged from a secure psychiatric hospital to a care home in the community where he continued to receive treatment, but was deprived of his liberty. Mrs Justice Lieven held that this was lawful as were he to be returned to hospital his condition would deteriorate and result in a breach of his convention rights. However, it was possible to read the Mental Health Act in a convention compliant manner by reading “liable to be detained” to mean liable in law to be detained for treatment, even where that treatment is being provided in the community, so long as it could lawfully be provided in hospital.

Regulatory and Disciplinary

Fiona has extensive experience as both a solicitor and barrister of representing registrants before all of the major clinical regulators. She also advises regularly on appeals, judicial review challenges and injunctive relief against various regulators. Her background in clinical negligence and public law mean that she not only has a grasp of the forensic issues, but also the remedies available to registrants facing unfairness.

She has also advised and represented the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care.

Cases of note

  • Professional Standards Authority v General Medical Council and Onyekpe [2023] EWHC 2391 Admin - Represented the PSA in a statutory appeal to the High Court on the basis of under prosecution by the GMC of a doctor following a sexual relationship with a patient. The issue of the patient's vulnerability was not explored properly and the sanction was inadequate. Mr Justice Linden upheld the PSA's appeal and remitted the case for a re-hearing with additional charges addressing the patient's vulnerability and the doctor's knowledge of her vulnerability. 
  • Professional Standards Authority v HCPC and Yong [2021] EWHC 52 (Admin) - Represented the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care in an appeal to the High Court from a disciplinary panel of the Health and Care Professions Council. The court held that the panel had erred in finding that a social worker’s inappropriate behaviour towards six female colleagues was not behaviour “in a harassing manner” or sexually motivated. The panel had failed to consider that the council was subject to the public sector equality duty imposed by s149 of the Equality Act 2010 and had failed to consider the statutory definition of harassment in s26 of the Equality Act 2010. 

Recommendations

Fiona has received the following recommendations:

“An excellent barrister, who is very well regarded by the judiciary. She is very experienced and great at cutting through issues to get positive outcomes for clients.” Chambers and Partners 2025

“Fiona Paterson is clear in her communication, very easy to get on with and excellent at working with clinicians. She is also a very fine advocate.” Chambers and Partners 2025

“Fiona is a fierce advocate and a keen protector of the rights of vulnerable adults. She is intelligent and can grapple with complex and novel legal issues.” Legal 500 2025

“She is very good at getting on top of enormous medical documents and identifying the right questions to ask witnesses” Chambers and Partners 2024

“She is knowledgeable and extremely hard working” Chambers and Partners 2024

“Fiona has the ability to grapple with the most complex cases.” Chambers and Partners 2023

“She is really good on her feet and in negotiation.” Chambers and Partners 2023

“She is robust and really fights the client’s corner.”  Chambers and Partners 2023

"Brilliant written and oral submissions. Very knowledgeable in this area of law. Is always fully engaged with a case, no matter how big or small the issue is." The Legal 500 2023

“An excellent barrister who is really on the ball.” Chambers and Partners 2022

“Simply masterful in court… has the ability to translate complex and extensive information into compelling and persuasive submissions.” The Legal 500 2022

“Her written submissions are excellent…she is extremely reliable.” The Legal 500 2022

“Thinks very well on her feet.” Chambers and Partners 2021

“Very skilled and highly sensitive. Great on detail.” The Legal 500 2021

“[Fiona] is able to think broadly about a case but also provide expert advice on very specific issues that other barristers would not have knowledge of.” The Legal 500 2021

“A formidable advocate” and “an amazing lawyer.” Chambers and Partners 2020

“One of the leading lights in admin and public law.” The Legal 500 2020