Jonathan Davies

Call 2003


Jonathan is a specialist employment and discrimination lawyer with a record of success in very high profile and high value cases. Specialisms include doctors’ regulatory work, police employment and discrimination work, common law employment claims such as restrictive covenants and economic torts, negligent reference claims, bonus and pay claims and injunctions to prevent dismissal.


Jonathan Davies recently gave clients a short talk on defining the ‘provision, criterion or practice’ (PCP).
You can find the text of his talk here

Jonathan Davies recently appeared in Thomas and others v the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, a High Court group litigation action on behalf of the Royal Protection Squad for recovery of £4.5 to £9m in non-payment of overtime and other allowances.

Experience and expertise

Jonathan is an expert in all aspects of employment law.

Employment Tribunal Litigation

Atypical Workers
Jonathan has represented various clients in claims involving in the Agency Workers/Part Time Workers/Fixed Term Employees Regulations.

  • in 2016, he acted for a part time fixed term lecturer seeking pay parity with her full time permanent colleagues.

Compromise and Settlement Agreements

  • Jonathan advises employees and employers on the settlement of disputes/exit agreements as well as advising and acting in the event of non-compliance/breach.  In 2017 Jonathan advised a police force on the departure of a senior employee in well publicised case.  He also advised a highly regarded boutique law firm on exit arrangements.
  • Jonathan has often been instructed in claims seeking to enforce in the civil courts compromise agreements or seeking damages for their breach. In 2016, he acted in a claim against a high street retail bank for failure to provide a pension to a former employee was negotiated as part of her exit. In 2017, acted in a similar claim which came to trial against a large local authority.
  • In 2015 he advised in a settlement worth £9m involving an investment banker;
  • He is a trained mediator.

Conflict of Laws/Territorial Jurisdiction

  • Jonathan has advised and lectured on, and has a particular interest in, jurisdictional issues arising in the context of employment and discrimination disputes, both in wrongful dismissal and business protection High Court proceedings, and in proceedings before the ET. He has also advised on state immunity.

Cases and work of note

Thomas and others v the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
High Court group litigation action on behalf of the Royal Protection Squad for recovery of £4.5 to £9m in non-payment of overtime and other allowances. The claim concluded with a multi-million pound settlement in favour of the Claimants in May 2016.
Dippenaar v Bethnal Green Academy, EAT, Langstaff J UKEAT/0064/15/JOJ Harvey on Employment Law Bulletin 448 November 2015
Correct application of the statutory burden of proof provisions in the context of indirect discrimination claims under the Equality Act 2010.
Secretary of State for Justice v Lown [2016] IRLR 22
Circumstances in which Employment Judge substitutes his own view.
Croesus v the Bradshaws [2013] EWHC 3685 QB
Injunctive relief in business protection case.
Greenwood v NWF Retail [2011] ICR 896, EAT
Employment Tribunal’s duty to give reasons.
Kulkarni v. Milton Keynes NHS Foundation Trust [2009] IRLR 829, CA
Right to legal representation in internal disciplinary proceedings.
Mezey v SW London & St George’s Mental Health NHS Trust (No.2) [2010] IRLR 512 CA
Enforcement of contractual disciplinary procedures by way of injunctive relief.
Rice and Thompson v. Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2007] ICR 1469, CA
Workplace duties of care in negligence.
McKie v. Swindon College [2011] IRLR 575, QBD
Negligent references.
GX Networks Ltd v. Greenland [2010] IRLR 991, CA
Contractual commission dispute.


“He gives clear advice, is good with clients and good on his feet.” “A strong advocate in tribunal cases and a pleasure to work with.”
Chambers & Partners

“He will fight cases with real force and his cross-examination produces excellent results.”
The Legal 500