Search

Nick has over 12 years' experience acting for social care providers in the public, private and voluntary sectors.

Nicholas specialises in claims involving allegations of physical and sexual abuse. He has experience of investigating and defending claims against a range of charitable institutions, local authorities, churches and schools. This includes historic cases arising out of children’s care homes from the 1960’s onwards. He has expertise in dealing with complex and high-value cases. He has handled a number of multi-party actions and has successfully defended several cases at trial. His experience includes dealing with sensitive and high-profile cases experience. This involves risk management and advice regarding the press and social media.

Sectors:

Services:

  • Nick is a rising star and leading associate

    Legal 500
Experience and notable cases:

O’Grady / Jenkins v Action for Children (Cardiff County Court HHJ Seys Llewellyn QC) The claimants were resident in the 1980s at the defendant’s children home in South Wales. The cases stemmed from an earlier police investigation into alleged abuse at the home. The claim was defended on the basis of the police disclosure which reinforced concerns regarding the claimants’ credibility and motivation for bringing the claims.The case was dismissed and the Judge found that the claimants had lied during cross examination and had deliberately misled the court. EL  v The Children’s Society (RCJ Mr Justice Haddon-Cave) The claimant attended a children’s home run by the defendant between 1956 – 1959. He alleged that he was sexually abused by Frank Bibby who was the son of houseparent’s Mr and Mrs Bibby. It was the claimant’s case that Frank Bibby assisted in the running of the home whilst his parents were absent. It was alleged therefore that the defendant was vicariously liable for the acts of abuse. The claim was defended on the basis of limitation and vicarious liability. It was not accepted that Frank Bibby had been employed by the home and the claimant’s evidence was neither clear or compelling. The Judge found in our favour on both limitation and vicarious liability and noted that we were seriously prejudiced by the delay in bringing proceedings.