Andrew Saxton


Andrew assists health professionals and organisations when responding to professional indemnity claims, disciplinary proceedings, Medicare investigations, fraud and over-servicing claims. Andrew also appears as an advocate at coronial inquests and disciplinary proceedings.

He also works in the not-for-profit sector assisting charitable, religious and community organisations responding to children and vulnerable people making claims of historical sexual abuse. While working to resolve these claims compassionately, Andrew has also given risk management advice and developed policies for working with children.

Andrew is recognised by Best Lawyers in Australia in the fields of Medical Negligence and Health & Aged Care Law, categories for which he has been recognised since the inception of the awards in 2008. Andrew was nominated as Medical Negligence ‘Lawyer of the Year’ in Sydney 2016. He is also identified in Doyle’s Guide as a pre-eminent lawyer for Medical Negligence Lawyers (Defendant) NSW in the 2016, 2017, 2018,  2019 and 2020 editions.

Andrew is a health law specialist with a reputation for integrity and compassion. Andrew’s practice is marked by his advocacy and the consistency with which he delivers solutions to clients in the health and not-for-profit clients.

Jun 24, 2021

INSIGHT: High court affirms parents can consent to puberty blockers on behalf of their children

UK: Winding back Bell v Tavistock[i]; High Court affirms that parents can consent to puberty blockers on behalf of their children, which are not (of themselves) part of any “special category” of treatment requiring Court approval. Abstract In AB v CD & Ors[2], the UK High Court effectively reversed the practical effects of Bell (which […]

May 10, 2021

INSIGHT: Gender Dysphoria and Children: Lessons from R v Tavistock

R v Tavistock, Gender Dysphoria and Children: puberty blockers “interlinked” with cross-sex hormones such that informed consent extends to understanding future physical consequences of treatment; under 16s “highly unlikely” to be Gillick competent. Introduction In R v Tavistock[1], The UK High Court has held that treatment for Gender Dysphoria (“GD“) is contingent on court approval […]