Having been instructed early on in her career in seminal cases of Baker v Quantum Clothing Group Ltd  UKSC 17 (noise induced hearing loss test case litigation) and AB v Ministry of Defence  EWCA Civ 1317 and AB and others v Ministry of Defence  UKSC 9 (the Atomic Veterans test case litigation), Nadia developed a successful occupational disease practice in asbestos related conditions, chemical, biological and radiation exposure, carbon-monoxide poisoning and noise-induced hearing loss.
Highlights among Nadia’s cases:
Banik v Kensey Foods Limited (2018)
Instructed on behalf of the Defendant in an upper limb disorders case. The Claimant alleged that he developed an upper limb disorder as a result of his work as a machine operator. Breach of duty, foreseeability and causation was denied. The case discontinued following exchange of witness evidence and expert evidence shortly before the trial.
Najda v Samworth Brothers Ltd (2018) before HHJ Gore QC
Upper limb disorder case, involving issues of breach of duty, foreseeability and medical causation. Nadia visited the Defendant’s factory as part of her advisory work. The case was compromised at trial for a cost-inclusive sum.
Davies (deceased) v Tata Steel UK Limited (2018) instructed by the Defendant to advise on quantum in fatal malignant mesothelioma case.
Walker (deceased) and Millduce Limited and another (2018) instructed by the Defendants to represent them in a show cause application in a mesothelioma case before Master Eastman.
Sumner v Turtle Wax(2017) before Recorder McLaughlin sitting at Liverpool
Noise-induced hearing loss case: Nadia established breach of duty was established by demonstrating that the noise survey relied upon by the Defendant were undertaken in an incompetent manner.
Lovatt v Secretary of State and Another (2017) Recorder Male QC sitting at Stoke-on-Trent
Noise-induced hearing loss case: Nadia established breach of duty and medical causation following a 2-day trial. The Court rejected the argument advanced by the Defendant’s expert, Mr Parker, that the occupational audiograms should be preferred to the subsequent pure tone audiograms in circumstances where there was evidence about the poor conditions in which occupational audiograms were performed.
Shears v Vald Birn (UK) Limited (2017) District Judge Mark sitting at Newcastle-Upon-Tyne
Nadia successfully resisted the defence of limitation in this noise-induced hearing loss case on the basis that the symptoms that were experienced before the 3 years prior to issue of proceedings did not amount to ‘significant injury’. She resisted the Defendant’s argument that the Claimant should be fixed with constructive knowledge because of the objective loss present at that time (the so-called ‘low fence threshold’ argument).
Flux v Barden Vectis Limited and Plant & Tools Limited (2017) Recorder Grice sitting at Bristol
Nadia successfully defended a noise-induced hearing loss claim following a 2-day trial with oral evidence from medical experts. The claim was dismissed with the Judge considering that it was statute barred. The Court refused to exercise section 33 discretion, finding that the Defendant was prejudiced because the delay deprived it of an opportunity to undertake its own audiogram before an alleged deterioration in the Claimant’s hearing ‘wiped out’ the audiometric configuration associated with noise damage.
Wilkinson v. (1) John Laing & (2) E C Realisations (2017) Before Recorder Shaw sitting at Lancaster
Successfully resisted a defence of limitation in this noise-induced hearing loss claim. Although the Claimant was provided with a hearing aid some 6 years before proceedings were issued, the Court accepted that he did not have ‘knowledge’ within the meaning of section 14 of the Limitation Act 1980 on the basis that he reasonably assumed that this was attributable to his sleep apnoea.
Bryn v Moto Hospitality Ltd (2016)
Instructed by the Defendant in a lateral epicondylitis case. Following a number of contested applications, the Defendant was able to secure expert evidence that ultimately led to the claim being discontinued following an adjournment of a trial and after exchange of skeleton arguments. It was alleged that the condition was sustained during the course of the Claimant’s employment as a customer service assistant at Chieveley Services on the M4. The Defendant denied breach of duty, foreseeability and causation.
Gillingwater v Anglian Water Services Limited
Nadia represented the Claimant who was exposed to raw or partially treated sewage material and developed Botryomycosis. Liability was denied and a number of expert reports had to be obtained and carefully analysed before the claim was successfully settled.View full profile »
Qualifications, Appointments and Awards
- Bar Vocational Course (Outstanding) at the College of Law, 2006-7
- LLB (First Class Honours) awarded by the College of Law, 2007
- Graduate Diploma in Law (Distinction) at the College of Law, 2004-6
- MA in Medical Law and Ethics (Merit) at King’s College London, 2002-4
- BSc in Psychology (First Class Honours) at Westminster University, 1999-2002
- Princess Royal Scholar and Exhibitioner, Inner Temple, 2006
- Nadia Whittaker reports on a case where the failure to extract a tooth invalidated consent
- Case analysis: Robinson v Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Trust and Mercier  EWHC 21 (KB)
- Mitigation, taxation and assessment of loss: how to win most of the legal arguments but recover less than 10% of a £33 million claim
- A variable PPO against the Claimant’s wishes and no costs of a PI trust as there is capacity
“Nadia is an excellent barrister. She gets to grips with the issues quickly and gives clear advice, but she is also brilliant with lay clients and witnesses.”
Chambers & Partners, 2024
“Nadia is an impressive advocate both in writing and on her feet. She is able to articulate the risks of a case with sensitivity and clarity leaving lay clients confident of her recommendations.”
Legal 500, 2024
“Nadia is straightforward and relentless, she has an excellent eye for detail and relishes rolling up her sleeves and taking on difficult cases.”
Legal 500, 2024
“Nadia is the perfect counsel: analytical, pragmatic and conscientious.”
Legal 500, 2022
“Nadia is an extremely bright, tenacious advocate who brings real force to legal argument, particularly for maximising outcomes in negotiations. Adopts a thorough, robust and forensic approach to the law.”
Legal 500, 2021