Nina Ross

Nina specialises in civil claims arising out of sexual and physical abuse. She is a leading practitioner in the field and is instructed in complex litigation beyond her year of call by the top firms in this area.

Nina is instructed regularly in abuse claims against celebrities, commercial employers, police forces, schools, children’s homes, religious institutions (including the Catholic Church and Jehovah’s witnesses), sports clubs, prisons, local authorities, youth groups (such as the scouts), as well as in claims against individual defendants.

As co-author of Personal Injury Limitation Law, Bloomsbury (2020), she has a particular interest in the limitation issues that commonly arise in sexual abuse claims.

Examples of her instructions include:
• Sayn-Wittgenstein v Juan Carlos 1 [2023] EWHC 2478 (KB) (led by Jonathan Caplan KC and Andrew Green KC): claim for harassment brought against the former King of Spain
• Claims for sexual assault brought by various claimants against hedge fund manager Crispin Odey (led by Lizanne Gumber KC)
• A personal injury claim arising out of the torture of a Palestinian civilian in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
• Claims brought by various claimants arising out abuse in ballet schools
• A claim against the Metropolitan police in relation to sexual abuse perpetrated by convicted sex offender David Carrick
• FXF v Ampleforth Abbey Trustees [2020] EWHC 791 (QB): a claim arising out of the alleged sexual assault of the claimant by a Roman Catholic priest in the 1960s. In her judgment, Lambert J praised Nina’s submissions as being “comprehensive and attractive”. Due to the importance of the judgment on the matter of limitation, the case has been referred to in the White Book notes, two separate chapters of Kemp & Kemp and numerous legal blog posts.
• GXG v S [2019] EWHC 3644 (QB): a claim for psychiatric injuries arising out of serious sexual assaults inflicted upon the claimant by his neighbour when the claimant was a child. Nina argued successfully that the court should make an award for wasted expenditure on alcohol, a novel head of loss for which there is limited precedent.
• X v Kuoni [2021] UKSC 34 (led by William Audland KC): a claim against Kuoni brought under the 1992 Package Travel Regulations for sexual assaults committed by a hotel employee in Sri Lanka. This was the first ever Supreme Court case to consider the interpretation of the 1992 Regulations. Following a reference for a preliminary ruling, the CJEU delivered a judgment which considered for the first time when the criminal action of an employee would be attributable to an employer for the purposes of Directive 90/314 and provided landmark guidance on the concept of attribution in European law.
• Alseran & Others v Ministry of Defence [2017] EWHC 3289 (QB) [2018] 3 W.L.R. 95 (led by Richard Hermer KC and Harry Steinberg KC): claims against the MoD brought by Iraqi civilians who allege that they were assaulted and unlawfully detained by UK military personnel during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The claims succeeded before Leggatt J who gave a groundbreaking judgment on the circumstances in which a foreign limitation period will be disapplied under the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984, and whether damages for non-pecuniary loss assessed under English law should be reduced to reflect the lower cost of living in a foreign jurisdiction. The judgment has since been much cited by the English courts. Iraqis win damages for ‘ill-treatment’ by British soldiers – BBC News
• A modern-day slavery claim in which the claimant alleged that she was trafficked from Haiti to the UK, kept in domestic servitude and sexually abused. She brought a claim against the relevant police and local authorities under the HRA 1998, claiming that they had failed to remove her from her abusive home, thus breaching her right not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment (Article 3) and her right not to be held in slavery or servitude (Article 4).
• Group litigation brought by Kenyan orphans who were sexually abused by a British Airways pilot during stopovers in Kenya: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35724038
• Claims brought by Thai children who were sexually abused by a retired British teacher in Thailand: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38830191
• Various cases arising out of abuse suffered in Shirley Oaks Children’s Home.
• A claim for misuse of private information arising from revenge pornography
• A claim under the Package Travel Regulations 1992 arising out of the rape of the claimant by a barman in the toilet of a hotel nightclub during a package holiday in Cape Verde.
• A against a Buddhist teacher who sexually abused the claimant after meditation sessions.
• A claim for complex PTSD and somatoform disorder against a congregation of nuns arising out of sexual assault.
• A claim against a prison for failing to prevent a sexual assault negligently / contrary to Article 3 ECHR.
• A £5 million claim against a local authority where it was alleged that the authority’s failure to remove the claimant from her neglectful parents had altered the structure of her brain, causing her to suffer learning disabilities.
• A claim by British naval officer who was sexually assaulted by a senior officer in Bahrain.
• A claim against a local authority for breach of its non-delegable duty of care in relation to a child abused in a private school.
• A claim arising out of a paedophile ring on a military base in Cyprus in the 1980s.

Nina advises on all aspects of abuse work including limitation; consent; vicarious liability; non-delegable duties; negligence (including failure to remove); causation; apportionment; quantum; human rights; jurisdiction; and disclosure / evidential issues.

Nina’s abuse practice builds on her experience prior to joining the Bar. She spent nearly two years working on complex, high value personal injury litigation in the international and group claims department at Leigh Day & Co solicitors. There she was involved in claims by Iraqi citizens who alleged that they were physically and/or sexually abused by British soldiers in Iraq. She was also involved in claims by Iraqi interpreters who argued that they were abused by militia as a result of inadequate protection by their British forces employers. Similarly, while working at Liberty, Nina often advised members of the public on potential claims for assault / false imprisonment against employers and the police.

Nina is ranked as a leading junior in human rights in the current edition of Legal 500. She is frequently instructed in high-profile claims for personal injury brought under the HRA 1998.

She is an authority on limitation periods in HRA 1998 claims. Nina co-authored Personal Injury Limitation Law, Bloomsbury, 2020, drafting the section on the HRA 1998.

Examples of Nina’s human rights work include:
• A claim arising out of the torture of a Palestinian civilian in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
• A claim arising out of revenge pornography brought under the HRA 1998 and at common law
• A claim against the police for false imprisonment / breach of Article 5 ECHR
• A claim against a prison for failing to prevent a sexual assault negligently / contrary to Article 3 ECHR
• Numerous claims for failure to remove children from abusive homes contrary to Article 3/8 and/or for prolonged accommodation of children under s.20 of the CA 1989 contrary to Articles 6/8;
• Claims brought under the HRA 1998 and in Afghan law by the family of a boy who was shot and killed in Kandahar City by British military personnel following the US invasion of Afghanistan. The boy’s family brought claims for psychiatric injury under Afghan law and the Human Rights Act 1998. The claims gave rise to difficult issues concerning the application of the HRA 1998 outside the UK’s territorial boundaries; whether it would be equitable to allow the HRA 1998 claim to proceed outside the primary limitation period and whether the death of the boy constituted unlawful killing and was adequately investigated by the State.
• Alseran & Others v Ministry of Defence [2017] EWHC 3289 (QB) [2018] 3 W.L.R. 95 (led by Richard Hermer KC and Harry Steinberg KC): claims against the MoD brought by Iraqi civilians who allege that they were assaulted and unlawfully detained by UK military personnel during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The claims succeeded before Leggatt J who gave a groundbreaking judgment on the assessment of damages for just satisfaction pursuant to s.8 of the HRA 1998. The judgment has since been much cited by the English courts. Iraqis win damages for ‘ill-treatment’ by British soldiers – BBC News
• A modern-day slavery claim in which the Claimant alleged that she was trafficked from Haiti to the UK, kept in domestic servitude and sexually abused. She brought a claim against the relevant police and local authorities under the HRA 1998, claiming that they had failed to remove her from her abusers’ care thus breaching her right not to be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment (Article 3) and her right not to be held in slavery or servitude (Article 4).

Nina has gained experience in human rights at various organisations including at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia where she was part of the Defence team for Jovica Stanišić (Head of the Serbian State Security Service from 1991 to 1998). She has also worked at JUSTICE; Liberty; the National Centre for Domestic Violence; and the Legal Resources Centre in Durban, South Africa.

Nina specialises in Armed Forces claims. She has particular experience of acting for service personnel in claims arising out of sexual and physical assault; harassment; non-freezing cold injuries; and PTSD. She is highly regarded by solicitors specialising in military claims and was invited by the APIL panel to speak at its annual military seminar last year.

Examples of her work include:
• Claims brought by three female soldiers who allege that they were subjected by their chain of command to a campaign of sexual assaults and harassment during service
• Claims brought under the HRA 1998 and in Afghan law by the family of a boy who was shot and killed in Kandahar City by British military personnel following the US invasion of Afghanistan. The boy’s family brought claims for psychiatric injury under Afghan law and the Human Rights Act 1998. The claims gave rise to complex issues concerning whether an actionable tort had occurred in Afghan law; the MoD’s entitlement to rely upon the doctrine of Crown Act of State to avoid liability under foreign tort law; what heads of loss were recoverable in Afghan law; the application of the HRA 1998 outside the UK’s territorial boundaries; whether it would be equitable to allow the HRA 1998 claim to proceed outside the primary limitation period; and whether the death of the boy constituted unlawful killing and was adequately investigated by the State
• Alseran & Others v Ministry of Defence [2017] EWHC 3289 (QB) [2018] 3 W.L.R. 95 (led by Richard Hermer KC and Harry Steinberg KC): claims against the MoD brought by Iraqi civilians who allege that they were assaulted and unlawfully detained by UK military personnel during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The claims succeeded before Leggatt J who gave a groundbreaking judgment on the circumstances in which a foreign limitation period will be disapplied under the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984, and whether damages for non-pecuniary loss assessed under English law should be reduced to reflect the lower cost of living in a foreign jurisdiction. The judgment has since been much cited by the English courts. Iraqis win damages for ‘ill-treatment’ by British soldiers – BBC News
• A group claim arising out of the alleged failure of the MoD to identify and treat psychiatric injuries sustained by military personnel in combat
• A large group action against MoD for non-freezing cold injuries
• A claim brought by a British naval officer who was sexually assaulted by a senior officer in Bahrain
• A claim brought by a soldier who was harassed and assaulted by his peers during initiation ceremonies
• A claim brought by a soldier for NFCI, PTSD and NIHL leading to loss of military career

Nina is frequently instructed in high-profile, cross-border injury and assault claims.

She has particular expertise in claims brought under the Package Travel Regulations, having been instructed in one of the leading cases in this area (X v Kuoni). Nina advises on issues of jurisdiction and applicable law, including the application of Brussels Recast and Rome II.

Nina co-authored Personal Injury Limitation Law, Bloomsbury, 2020, writing the sections covering the complex limitation issues that arise in international claims.

Examples of instructions include:
• Sayn-Wittgenstein v Juan Carlos 1 [2023] EWHC 2478 (KB) (led by Jonathan Caplan KC and Andrew Green KC): a claim for harassment brought by a Danish national against the former King of Spain
• A personal injury claim arising out of the torture of a Palestinian civilian in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
• X v Kuoni [2021] UKSC 34 (led by William Audland KC): a claim against Kuoni brought under the 1992 Package Travel Regulations for sexual assaults committed by a hotel employee in Sri Lanka. This was the first ever Supreme Court case to consider the interpretation of the 1992 Regulations. Following a reference for a preliminary ruling, the CJEU delivered a judgment which considered for the first time when the criminal action of an employee would be attributable to an employer for the purposes of Directive 90/314 and provided landmark guidance on the concept of attribution in European law.
• Claims brought under the HRA 1998 and in Afghan law by the family of a boy who was shot and killed in Kandahar City by British military personnel following the US invasion of Afghanistan. The boy’s family brought claims for psychiatric injury under Afghan law and the Human Rights Act 1998. The claims gave rise to difficult issues concerning whether an actionable tort had occurred in Afghan law; the MoD’s entitlement to rely upon the doctrine of Crown Act of State to avoid liability under foreign tort law; what heads of loss were recoverable in Afghan law; the application of the HRA 1998 outside the UK’s territorial boundaries; whether it would be equitable to allow the HRA 1998 claim to proceed outside the primary limitation period; and whether the death of the boy constituted unlawful killing and was adequately investigated by the State.
• Muncipio de Mariana v BHP Group Plc: one of the largest group actions ever brought in the UK. Nina was part of the Counsel team for c.100,000 claimants who suffered injuries and/or property damage due to the collapse of the fundao dam in Brazil in 2015.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bhp-britain-court-dam/bhp-faces-first-step-in-6-3-billion-uk-claim-over-brazil-dam-failure-idUKKCN24F2TC?edition-redirect=uk
Alseran & Others v Ministry of Defence [2017] EWHC 3289 (QB) [2018] 3 W.L.R. 95 (led by Richard Hermer KC and Harry Steinberg KC): claims against the MoD brought by Iraqi civilians who allege that they were assaulted and unlawfully detained by UK military personnel during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The claims succeeded before Leggatt J who gave a groundbreaking judgment on the circumstances in which a foreign limitation period will be disapplied under the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984, and whether damages for non-pecuniary loss assessed under English law should be reduced to reflect the lower cost of living in a foreign jurisdiction. The judgment has since been much cited by the English courts. Iraqis win damages for ‘ill-treatment’ by British soldiers – BBC News
• Group litigation brought by Kenyan orphans who were sexually abused by a British Airways pilot during stopovers in Kenya: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35724038
• Claims brought by Thai children who were sexually abused by a retired British teacher in Thailand: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38830191
• A claim under the 1992 Regulations arising out of the rape of the claimant by a barman in the toilet of a hotel nightclub during a package holiday in Cape Verde.
• A fatal claim arising out of a road traffic accident in Croatia.
• A claim by British naval officer who was sexually assaulted by a senior officer in Bahrain.
• Historic abuse claims brought by a footballers assaulted by their coach during team trips to Norway and Thailand.
• A group action by environmental protestors who were shot, beaten, tortured and detained by security guards at a factory in Peru while attending a peaceful protest.

Nina is a leading personal injury practitioner instructed in complex and high-profile litigation.

She acts for claimants and defendants in all manner of personal injury litigation, including sexual abuse claims; military claims; claims arising from accidents abroad; road traffic accident claims; employers’ liability claims; claims for occupational stress; chronic pain cases; occupier’s, public and product liability claims; highways cases; defective premises claims; and Animals Act claims.

Nina is an authority on limitation periods and is co-author of Personal Injury Limitation Law, Bloomsbury (2020).
Given her specialism in abuse and military claims, Nina has particular experience of claims for psychiatric injury and the complex issues of diagnosis and causation that arise. She is often instructed in cases involving novel points for example in relation to the scope and nature of the duty of care.

Her recent personal injury work includes a personal injury claim arising out of the torture of a Palestinian civilian in the Occupied Palestinian Territories; a claim for lifelong selective mutism allegedly caused to a child by a minor accident in a supermarket; numerous claims for chronic pain arising out of physical assaults suffered by teachers; a claim arising out of the suicide of a junior doctor following stress at work; and a product liability claim relating to allegedly defective sexual lubricant.

Nina has extensive experience of CICA claims, including fatal claims; claims for disabling physical and psychiatric injuries; and claims arising out of rape and child sexual abuse. For example, Nina represented an applicant who was abused by the late Jimmy Savile.

She appears regularly in the First Tier Tribunal in eligibility and quantum appeals. She has also appeared before the Second Tier Tribunal in judicial review proceedings concerning the withholding of a fatal award due to the alleged bad character of the deceased.

Nina is frequently instructed by defendants in trials where fraud is alleged or suspected. She has obtained findings of fundamental dishonesty against claimants on numerous occasions.

Bar Vocational Course (Outstanding), BPP College of Professional Studies

Graduate Diploma in Law (Distinction), City University

MA (Distinction), Islamic, Hindu and Buddhist Studies, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London

BA Hons, English Language and Literature, Balliol College, University of Oxford

Major scholar, Middle Temple Inns of Court

Shakespeare scholar, Balliol College, University of Oxford

Nina is ranked as a leading junior in personal injury in the current editions of Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners.

Nina is very forensic, detailed and thorough. She also explains things very well and carefully. – Chambers & Partners, 2024

She leaves no stone unturned. She is very good at unpicking issues and forensic in detail. – Chambers & Partners, 2024

She is strategic, with a keen eye for detail. She is experienced at dealing with sexual abuse work. Clients feel that they are in safe and capable hands. – Chambers & Partners, 2024

Nina is a fantastic advocate, who particularly excels in complex and sensitive cases. – Legal 500, 2024

Her way with clients is second-to-none. Clear advice coupled with empathy is exactly what vulnerable clients require and she delivers it in spades. – Legal 500, 2023

Nina is very thorough and is a safe pair of hands. She looks at all possible angles. – Legal 500, 2023

She is a phenomenally intuitive lawyer and her clients get along with her enormously well. – Chambers & Partners, 2022

Crystal-clear in her thinking and analysis, she is able to marshal the material and frame the argument for maximum impact. – Legal 500, 2022

Sayn-Wittgenstein v Juan Carlos 1 [2023] EWHC 2478 (KB) (led by Jonathan Caplan KC and Andrew Green KC): claim for harassment brought against the former King of Spain.

X v Kuoni [2021] UKSC 34 (led by William Audland KC): a claim brought under the 1992 Package Travel Regulations for sexual assaults committed by a hotel employee in Sri Lanka, which was referred by the Supreme Court to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on a point of European law.

FXF v Ampleforth Abbey Trustees [2020] EWHC 791 (QB): a claim arising out of the alleged sexual assault of the claimant by a Roman Catholic priest, in which the key issue was limitation.

GXG v S [2019] EWHC 3644 (QB): a claim for psychiatric injuries arising out of serious sexual assaults inflicted upon the claimant by his neighbour when the claimant was a child. The award of damages included an award for wasted expenditure on alcohol.

Alseran & Others v Ministry of Defence [2017] EWHC 3289 (QB) [2018] 3 W.L.R. 95: claims against the MoD brought by Iraqi civilians who allege that they were assaulted and unlawfully detained by UK military personnel during the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Various claimants v (1) British Airways; (2) Wood: group litigation against British Airways for child sexual abuse carried out by a pilot during stopovers in Kenya.

Personal Injury Limitation Law (co-author) Bloomsbury (2020)

Contributor Asbestos: Law & Litigation, Sweet & Maxwell, 2019 (Chapter; Limitation)