Nicola Greaney

Recommendations

Nicola was recommended in Chambers & Partners as a leading junior in Professional Discipline, Community Care and Court of Protection law and in the Legal 500 as a leading junior in Administrative and Public Law, Clinical Negligence, Costs and Professional discipline and regulatory law (including police law).

Quotes

• “A terrific junior with good judgement, who is hard-working, knows her stuff and is good at meeting deadlines.” “She is incredibly detailed in her approach – a spreadsheet queen.” Chambers UK 2021
• “Very experienced, and gets into the detail of the case to find practical solutions.” Chambers UK 2021
• “Extremely professional and knowledgeable. She is able to give exceptional yet compassionate advice in very complex cases.” “She puts up a good fight for her clients.” Chambers UK 2021
• “She is personable, calm and unflappable in court.” “She is always extremely approachable. She gives robust and clear advice.” Chambers UK 2021
• “Very experienced.” “She’s great to work with.” Chambers UK 2021
• “Extremely bright, thorough and thoughtful.” Chambers UK 2020
• “She is easy to work with, very responsive and has a detailed knowledge of mental health and the healthcare sector. She’s very reliable, has a great rapport with clients and really understands their needs.” “A very pleasant opponent and an advocate who makes her points well in court.” Chambers UK 2020
• “A robust advocate who is very down to earth. She provides very sound advice.” Chambers UK 2020
• “Provides no-fuss, pragmatic advice. Her public law experience and her legal instinct are particularly valued by our regulatory clients.” Chambers UK 2020
• “She has a good knowledge of the structure of the NHS.” Legal 500 2020
• “Excellent at mental health, consent and capacity issues.” Legal 500 2020
• “A great person to have around when the storm hits.” Legal 500 2020
• “Gives intelligent advice.” Legal 500 2020
• “Well liked by clients.” Legal 500 2020
• “She is clever and well prepared.” Legal 500 2020
• “A high quality public law specialist who understands the client’s needs.” The Legal 500 2018
• “She is very practical, pragmatic and sensible.” Chambers UK 2018
• “She has a very, very good command of the law.” Chambers UK 2019
• “She is very knowledgeable and thorough.” The Legal 500 2018
• “She’s fantastic at what she does. She gives very thorough advice and is very good with clients.” Chambers UK 2019
• “In the mental health field she is second to none.” The Legal 500 2018
• “Responsive, pragmatic advice and extensive public law experience.” Chambers UK 2019
• “Very knowledgeable and approachable.” “She gives clear and easy advice which is also commercial and sensible.” Chambers UK 2018
• “A very clever barrister” who “provides no-fuss, responsive and pragmatic advice.” Chambers UK 2019
• “A superlative cross-examiner, with wonderful natural authority.” The Legal 500 2018
• “An excellent all-rounder, calm and likeable.”
• “A very capable junior and a safe pair of hands on healthcare regulatory cases.”
• “A talented public law practitioner who is highly regarded for her Court of Protection work. Sources note that ‘she is very good with clients and is keen to ensure that their views are taken on board – she is a great team player’.”
• “Very personable and efficient, she understands people and client service in a way many barristers do not.”
• She is excellent; clients love her and she works hard for you.” “She’s not flashy or loud, but sensible and measured instead, which gains respect.”
• “She’s very thorough, quick to respond and very bright as well.” “Able to grasp the issues quickly, she gets to the nub of the matter without needing too much input.”
• “I was against her in a bitter dispute – she brought common sense and a practical and pragmatic approach to resolving the dispute.” Chambers & Partners 2017
• “She is a really effective advocate and a really good negotiator.” “She is an excellent junior who is extremely bright and very good at understanding complex arguments.” Chambers & Partners 2017
• “She is very approachable and willing to take on challenging deadlines.” Legal 500 2016
• “An excellent all-rounder, calm and likable” Legal 500 2016
• “She has an excellent reputation for medical treatment cases. I found her practical, very reliable, and she mastered a brief at short notice.” Chambers & Partners 2016
• “She is very mature and confident and plainly has the trust of the Official Solicitor and the Treasury team in big cases.” Chambers & Partners 2016
• “She’s accessible, knows her stuff and is good in court.” Chambers & Partners 2016
• “Very personable and efficient, she understands people and client service in a way many barristers do not.” Chambers & Partners 2016
• “She is a committed and determined advocate who is great with clinicians and experts.” Chambers & Partners 2016
• “She is a good strategist with fine advocacy skills.” Chambers & Partners 2016
• “She is extremely able and has a very good manner with clients.” Legal 500 2015
• “She has a very good manner with clients.” Legal 500 2015
• “A committed and determined advocate, who is great with clinicians and experts.” Legal 500 2015
• “Flexible and thorough.” Legal 500 2015
• “Extremely good with difficult litigants in person. She keeps her eye on the ball and has a very good knowledge of the law and the remedies we can apply for.” Chambers & Partners 2015
• “Very thorough and knowledgeable on complex sexual relations cases.” Chambers & Partners 2015
• “She’s extremely clear and authoritative; the court listens to her particularly attentively.” Chambers & Partners 2015
• “She manages to be very direct and very good at focusing parties in on the issues.” Chambers & Partners 2015

Related Cases

Administrative and Public Law (includes Human Rights)

Phillips v Secretary of State for Transport (24 February 2020) – Strike-out hearing before HHJ Roberts concerning A1P1 and vehicle licence plate numbers.

London Borough of Southwark v NP and NM [2019] EWCOP 48. Capacity and welfare dispute involving a young person with cerebral palsy and atypical anorexia.

R (on the application of Barking & Dagenham College) v Office for Students [2019] EWHC 2667 (Admin). Led by Fenella Morris QC in a judicial review challenge to the OfS’s refusal to grant registration to a higher education provider. Application for an interim injunction restraining publication of the decision was refused.

R (on the application of Juttla & ors) v Hertfordshire Valleys Clinical Commissioning Group [2018] EWHC 267 (Admin). Decision to cease commissioning a respite service for children was in breach of CCG’s duty to consult with the local authority about substantial development of the health service. Instructed by the CCG.

RH v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (DLA) [2018] UKUT 48, UT Judge Rowland. Considering the role of appointees and litigation friends in the Upper Tribunal

Re D (Medical Treatment) [2017] EWCOP 15. It was in the best interests of D to travel to Serbia to receive experimental stem cell treatment for acquired brain injury. Instructed by MOD.

Re Paul Briggs [2016] EWCOP 48, Charles J, Instructed by the Legal Aid Agency. The question of whether it was in someone’s best interests to receive artificial nutrition and hydration was an issue to be determined in s.21A MCA 2005 proceedings.

National Aids Trust v NHS Commissioning Board & Local Government Association & anr [2016] EWHC 2005 (Admin), [2016] EWCA Civ 1100. Instructed by LGA. NHSE had power to fund PrEP, an anti-retroviral drug to be used on a preventative basis for those at high risk of contracting HIV.

South Staffordshire and Shropshire Healthcare NHS FT & anr v The Hospital Managers of St George’s Hospital and AU [2016] EWHC 1196, Cranston J. Acted for claimant in a judicial review of a decision by hospital managers to discharge a patient detained under the Mental Health Act. Held that a Trust had capacity to judicially review its own managers.

Re PV [2015] EWCOP 87, [2016] EWHC EWCOP  3707 (Charles J on appeal) and [2015] EWCOP 22 (Senior Judge Lush at first instance). Court of Protection case concerning trusts created for the purpose of administering awards made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. No involvement of the Court of Protection was required in the settlement of such trusts because the award was not ever P’s money. Guidance given by the Court of Protection in dealing with such cases.

Re NK (July 2015, Cobb J). Withdrawal of life saving treatment from a 3 year old with a rare metabolic disorder. Acted on behalf of the family.

A NHS Hospital v M and K [2013] EWHC 2402 (COP) Withholding of CPR  and ICU treatment save for reversible conditions

XCC v A [2012] EWHC 2183 (COP) Forced marriage and the inherent jurisdiction to make a declaration of the non-recognition of a marriage.

A Local Authority v H 27 January 2012 [2012] EWHC 49 (Fam) Case concerning capacity to consent to sexual relations. Guidance on knowledge required of health risks of sexual relations and additional requirement to that set out in DBC v AB that P understands that he has a choice and may refuse.

R (Buckinghamshire CC) v Kingston upon Thames RBC [2011] EWCA Civ 457 Consideration of the duty of consultation based on fairness or detriment.

D County Council v LS [2010] EWHC 1916 (Fam) Consideration of test of capacity to consent to sexual relations.

R (on the application of Stamford Chamber Of Trade & Commerce) (2) F H Gilman & Co v (1) Secretary Of State For Communities & Local Government (2) South Kesteven District Council 7 April 2009 [2009] EWHC 719 (Admin) No duty of public consultation was imposed on a local planning authority, in respect of its decision not to request the saving of a safeguarding policy in the local development plan.

EM (Lebanon) v Secretary Of State For The Home Department (2008) October 2008 [2008] UKHL 64 The removal of a Lebanese asylum seeker and her 12-year-old son to Lebanon would give rise to a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.8 given that she would be compelled to transfer custody of her son to his father, who had been violent towards her and who had not seen the son since his birth; removal would so flagrantly violate their art.8 rights as to completely deny or nullify those rights.

R (Johnson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2007] EWCA Civ 427 A prisoner serving a determinate sentence would have a right to compensation for a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 Art. 5 (4) if he could establish that there had been an unlawful delay in the consideration of his application for parole.

Gustavo Suarez Ocampo v Secretary of State for the Home Department (CA) 4 October 2006 [2006] EWCA Civ 1276 The guidelines in Devaseelan v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2002) UKIAT 702, (2003) Imm AR 1 were relevant to cases where the parties involved were not the same but there was a material overlap of evidence.

Clinical Negligence

James Robshaw v United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust [2015] EWHC 923 (Foskett J).  Very high value contested quantum trial. Nicola was led by Neil Block QC.

Ettienne v Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Trust (22.10.14, Mitting J). A doctor had not been negligent when he inserted an ulnar artery catheter into a 28 week old baby’s wrist. It was acceptable for him to have adopted the procedure that he knew best. There were real difficulties in inserting a line into the posterior tibial artery. It was a balance of risks and it was essential that her blood gases were accurately and continuously monitored and blood was available to test. Nicola was instructed by the Defendant Trust.

Downes v Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (11. 11.14, HHJ Wood QC) Nicola was instructed by the Defendant Trust. Complicated fatal accidents claim (quantum only) raising issues as to valuation of maternal services against a background of family proceedings concerning the children and the mother having supervised contact prior to death and the approach to calculation of multiplier in fatal accidents claim. Case compromised with acceptance of Defendant’s latest part 36 offer on final day of trial.

Regulatory and disciplinary

Gatland & Ors v Independent Office for Police Conduct– acting for claimants in ongoing proceedings for misfeasance in public office and breaches of the European Convention arising from IOPC investigations

Uwen v General Medical Council [2018] EWHC 2484 (Admin). Application for termination of an interim suspension order by a doctor was refused. MPTS was entitled to find that probity issues arising from the doctor having practised without indemnity insurance made it necessary for her to be subject to interim suspension.

HA v University of Wolverhampton & General Pharmaceutical Council [2018] EWHC 144. Acted for GPhC. The university was entitled to seek disclosure of criminal convictions from a student applying for the MPharm course.

PSA v (1) GDC (2) AB [2016] EWHC 2154 (Admin), Jeremy Baker J. Unduly lenient appeal in respect of a dentist who had practised while infected with Hepatitis B.

R (on the application of John Davies) v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons [2015] EWHC 3282, [2015] EWHC 3707 (costs). Judicial review challenge to the handling of complaints made against two veterinary nurses

Costs & Litigation Funding

Dalia El-Demellawy v European Bank for Reconstruction and Redevelopment – Detailed assessment proceedings before Master Leonard (July 2020) Interest ran at Judgments Act rate on the Defendant’s costs despite an order for set-off against the Claimants costs by the trial judge (application of Fearns v Anglo-Dutch Paint).

Holmes v Brighton & Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust (May 2020)– pending appeal in a clinical negligence case against the refusal of an application to set aside a notice of discontinuance and strike out

In the matter of AE, FW, SC and JB and ors [2017 COP]. Costs disputes in the Court of Protection about costs sanctions for failure to give full and frank disclosure

Pearce v Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change, Coal Products Limited, National Smokeless Fuels Limited (2016 – 2019, Turner J, Master Gordon Sakar. Group litigation costs. Instructed as junior counsel to Alexander Hutton QC to deal with costs management and other costs issues for the defendants.

Bakhtiyar v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Upper Tribunal, 9 September 2015. A challenge to the SSHD’s reliance on the Re Eastwood approach of assessing the costs of in-house lawyers failed.

R(Ali Zaki Mousa & ors) v Secretary of State for Defence [2013] EWHC 2941 (DC) Consideration of the use of set-off in the context of legally aided claimants and the decision in JG v Legal Services Commission.

JBOL v PHE August 2013, Master Rowley Consideration of conduct issues and cost estimates in the context of judicial review claims.

Personal Injury

Biznia (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) v Razgulajevs (2014) High value personal injury claim brought by a Lithuanian national who sustained serious brain injury as a result of a road traffic accident in the United Kingdom. Difficult quantum issues arising from the question as to whether the Claimant would return to reside in Lithuania in the future. A case management decision precluded the Claimant from relying on certain expert and lay evidence from Lithuania and an appeal had been brought in respect of that decision. Case subsequently compromised at a RTM. Charlie Cory-Wright QC and Nicola Greaney were instructed by the Official Solicitor on behalf of the Claimant.

Ryan St George (A Patient Suing By His Father & Litigation Friend David St George) v Home Office [2008] Quantum issues arising from prisoner who fell out of a top bunk bed while suffering a withdrawal seizure, thereby sustaining a head injury that resulted in brain damage. Quantum case settled adopting a novel approach to accommodation claim to avoid difficulties created by Roberts v Johnstone.

Smith Shiprepairers North Shields v Secretary of State for Innovation, Business and Skills. Case settled before trial. Contribution claim pursuant to the 1978 Act in respect of a claim for mesothelioma brought by the estate of the deceased in circumstances where the deceased had reached an inter vivos settlement with the defendants to the contribution claim.

R v Police Complaints Commission ex parte Green [2004] 1 WLR 72 (CA) The extent of disclosure required by the Human Rights Act in police complaints cases.

R v Bedford Primary Care Trust ex parte Watts (QBD) 21 October 2003 [2003] EWHC 2401 (Admin); [2004] Lloyd’s Rep Med 113 A claim for a hip operation carried out in France on the basis of EU law.