Nadia practices in all aspects of personal injury: road traffic accidents, employer and public liability and intentional torts, including sexual abuse. She has represented both Defendants and Claimants in historic sexual abuse cases, securing successful settlements, including financial compensation for sexual abuse by parents.
Nadia regularly acts in catastrophic cases with life changing spinal injuries, amputation and traumatic brain injuries, including subtle brain damage, raising complex issues of capacity. including subtle brain damage, raising complex issues of capacity. She advises on insurance issues, contractual interpretation and claims against the Motor Insurers’ Bureau. She is familiar with issues of service outside jurisdiction, in prison and in cases that require the involvement of the Official Solicitor.
Highlights among Nadia’s recent cases:
Turculet (a protected party) v ERS Insurance Group Limited (ongoing)
The Claimant suffered serious injuries including brain trauma in a road traffic accident at the age of 43 years, rending him a protected party unable to work and requiring constant supervision. A substantial settlement was negotiated by the parties. However, the Claimant passed away from an unexpected cardiac event when the parties were awaiting an approval hearing. The claim was amended to be pursued on behalf of the deceased’s estate and dependents, but now raises complex issues of medical causation as the Defendant disputes that brain trauma was responsible for the deceased’s death at the age of 47 years and nearly 4 years after the original injury.
S (a protected party) v Greenshaw High school (ongoing)
The Claimant received a serious head injury in a bullying incident at school. The case concern the scope of the school’s duty of care in respect of violent acts of its pupils as well as causation issues as the Claimant suffered from Tourette Syndrome, which is alleged to have been triggered or aggravated by his injuries. Liability is denied and it is anticipated that the case will proceed to trial.
Juj v Waitrose Limited (2021)
The Claimant, an octogenarian was visiting a Waitrose shop. Having parked in a disabled bay, he tripped over a kerbed area surrounding the disabled bay and suffered brain injury. At the trial of the preliminary issue of liability, Her Honour Judge Backhouse found that, although the Defendant was an occupier for the purposes of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, its duty was limited to “immediate hazards” and to reporting matters to the Local Council and that no action would have been taken even if the matter had been reported. She further found that although the kerb represented an unreasonable hazard to the users of the disabled bay, the accident was “simply a true accident”. Nadia drafted an application to appeal, which was granted by Stewart J on 25 February 2021 on the basis that both the limits on the scope of the duty owed by the Defendant and the Judge’s finding that there was no liability despite the kerb being an “unreasonable danger” to the disabled users of the parking bay merited review by the High Court. The decision on appeal is still awaited.
Riddington v Four Jays Limited (2021)
The Claimant was a high functioning above knee amputee who was wearing a prosthetic leg when driving a motorcycle that involved in a road traffic accident. The accident resulted in significant injury to the other leg, rendering him a double amputee. Liability for the accident was disputed. The Defendant also argued that the loss of the leg was not caused by the accident and resulted from a subsequent event unrelated to it. Nadia acted on her own when advising initially and drafting the pleadings. The Defendant then instructed leading counsel to act for it due to the complexity of the issues involved. Nadia was then led by Richard Lynagh QC, although she continued to be actively involved in the case. Despite a robust denial of liability, the claim settled at a negotiation meeting, enabling the Claimant to secure reasonable compensation for a double-amputee situation in which he has now found himself.
Hancock (deceased) v Kurti (2021)
Instructed by the insurers in this fatal case where the deceased’s died from brain trauma caused in a road traffic accident to advance an intricate argument concerning contributory negligence not in the context of the accident, but from a failure to seek medical attention. The case was further complicated on the issue of quantum as the claim was made by the dependent in respect of financial and services dependency of a functioning alcoholic. The case was settled at a round table meeting with a significant discount on account of both causation and quantum.
Weston v the Estate of Cooney (Deceased) and the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (2021)
A road traffic accident involving a 17-yer-old young woman driven by her boyfriend who suffered fatal injuries. It subsequently transpired that the driver was uninsured. The case involved significant procedural challenges due to there being no representatives of the deceased driver’s estate. Nadia advised on the involvement of the Official Solicitor to ensure that proceedings could be served. The Claimant claimed for loss of a chance to pursue a successful career as a jockey and the uncertainty about her nascent career made the assessment of quantum extremely complex.
B v X and Y (2020)
The Claimant, a woman in her late 20s, brought a claim against her parents alleging historic sexual, physical and emotional abuse perpetrated by her father when she was aged 3 to 15 years. The Claimant alleged that she first realised the scope and nature of the abuse after first experiencing flashbacks when she moved out of her parents’ house to study at the University and then, subsequently, when she obtained copies of her GP records which revealed that she suffered from persistent anogenital warts for a period of about 2 years from the age of 5 years and that the possibility of sexual abuse was raised in her medical records at the time, although apparently rebutted by her mother. The Claimant alleged that her mother knew or should have known about wrongful sexual assaults, trespass and battery perpetrated by the father and other males; that she facilitated and concealed them as well as perpetrated her own acts of physical and emotional abuse. The instances of abuse were denied by the parents who also raised the defence of limitation. The case was settled at a mediation with the Claimant receiving monetary compensation.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 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