Nicola is a legal director based in our Newcastle office. She qualified as a solicitor in 2013 in England and Wales.

Since qualification, Nicola has represented insurers, mutuals, large corporate entities, a number of London Boroughs and individual and company policyholders on a wide range of personal injury claims (RTA, public and employer’s liability) as well as advising on policy coverage and product liability.

Her caseload has consisted of defending claims made against employers, owners and occupiers of premises, serious injuries, fatalities, road traffic accidents and inquests. More recently, Nicola has represented clients in data protection breach claims, human rights claims and discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010.

Over the years, she has developed a close working relationship with clients. Nicola regularly provides Lawyer Partnering for clients, auditing and training on a variety of subjects. She is uniquely positioned in that she also advises and represents the interests of a particular corporate entity under Scottish law.

She is approachable and flexible, providing commercial, analytical and strategic advise set against a background of corporate and financial considerations that is tailored to the specific demands of each client.

Market recognition

  • Legal 500 – A key lawyer for ‘Insurance – Personal Injury: Defendant’
    Nicola provides “a uniquely personal service to defendant insurers” and is “always prepared to go above and beyond, not simply handling litigated cases, but providing ad-hoc competent advice, training and support."

Work highlights

  • Melanie Stanley v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2020] EWHC 16222 (QB)
    The Claimant brought a claim for breach of Data Protection Act / GDPR, Misuse of Private Information, Breach of Confidence and Interference with Private and Family Life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
    Judgment was entered after proceedings were served by post 2 days following the commencement of the Covid 19 pandemic lockdown, when the Defendant’s offices were closed and nobody from the Defendant knew that service had been effected.
    The Court granted relief from sanctions and judgment was successfully set aside on the basis that there was a real prospect of successfully defending the claim and tat there was “some other good reason” pursuant to CPR 13.3(1)(b), paying particular attention to paragraph 4 of CPR PD 51ZA.
    Whilst relevant specifically to the service of Court proceedings during the lockdown period, the case places importance on the need for parties to show common sense and reasonableness in the manner and timing of service of proceedings.