About Us

Atlantic Chambers is one of the most dynamic sets of barristers' chambers in the North West. The expertise of our barristers is being called upon nationwide.


Want to know what's happening?

Practice Areas

We have a reputation for high quality advice and advocacy across all areas of practice with dedicated practitioners at all levels of experience and seniority.

Our Barristers

We have a reputation for high quality advice and advocacy across all areas of practice with dedicated practitioners at all levels of experience and seniority.

Get in Touch

Alexander Jones

Call: 2015
Inn: Inner Temple
Civil Litigation Employment Inquests Personal Injury Police Law Public Law Road Traffic Accidents

Professional Profile

Alexander became a member of Chambers in 2017 after successful completion of pupillage under the supervision of Mark Chester. Alex now has a busy common law practice with particular emphasis on personal injury and civil actions against the police (acting solely on behalf of police authorities).

Alex’s growing client basis includes various police forces, public bodies and he is a member of the Attorney General’s C Panel (appointed March 2020). Alex’s appointment will last until 2025 and will require him to undertake complex civil and employment work on behalf of all government departments.

Alex likes to bring a pragmatic and problem-solving approach to his cases; he has been praised for his ability to adapt to the needs of his clients.

Alex is friendly and approachable and has a strong relationship with his instructing solicitors and is happy to provide informal advice during any stage, and welcomes contact by email or telephone.

Alex usually responds to request for paperwork within 14 days but is able to accommodate tighter deadlines on request. Instructions are accepted on a Conditional Fee Agreement basis where the merits of the case allow.

Alexander Jones is a practising barrister, who is regulated by the Bar Standards Board.

Areas of Work

Civil Litigation

Alex is regularly instructed to appear in cases allocated to the fast track and multi-track, covering areas of personal injury (all areas).

Alex regularly appears for both Claimants and Defendants in County Court proceedings, including stage 3 protocol hearings, infant approvals, disposals, costs and case management hearings and allocation/direction hearings.

Alex has developed an expanding Multi Track practice and is often instructed to advise in cases of substantial value and complexity dealing with issues of quantum, liability and causation in all areas of employers liability/occupier liability and road traffic accident claims. Alex has a track record of acting successfully for Claimant’s involved in motorcycling accidents and securing substantial awards of compensation.

Alex has experience in drafting Statements of Case, including Particulars of Claim, Schedules of Loss and Defences. He is also asked on a regular basis to draft Part 35 questions to experts and draft applications on behalf of solicitor clients with supporting witness statements.


Alex has an in depth understanding of representing businesses of varying size and industry in a wide range of employment tribunal matters inclusive of complex multi-day discrimination and whistleblowing cases. Alex’s growing employment practice is complimented by his recent appointment to the Attorney General’s C Panel. Alex is now regularly instructed to undertake complex employment work on behalf of all government departments.

Alex has also taken on several employment pro-bono cases for Claimants with great success, his most recent case having settled for a five-figure sum prior to the preliminary hearing.

Police Law

Alex regularly advises police forces on civil actions being brought against them. Alex has experience in dealing with cases including allegations of assault, unlawful imprisonment, misfeasance in public office, harassment, breach of ECHR rights, breach of Data Protection regulations and many more.

Alex has first-hand experience of dealing with litigants in person in claims against the police. Alex is no stranger to cross examination and is able to assess when a robust approach is necessary or where a more conservative approach will be more successful.

Alex also specialises in representing police forces and government agencies in securing injunctive relief through litigation. Notably Alex is often instructed to represent the interests of Chief Constable’s in seeking injunctive relief under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which includes housing related injunctions.

Alex also specialises in ‘Gang Injunctions’ and has secured several committals to prison.

Alex regularly advises at an early stage on the evidential points and applicable law when representing his instructing Police Forces, often in writing followed by a conference where necessary.

Alex also assists police forces in multi-jurisdictional issues spanning the Criminal, Civil and Family Courts. Most often Alex is instructed to secure Public Interest Immunity (PII) against disclosure of sensitive intelligence and regularly appears on behalf of Police Forces in the Family Courts to achieve the same. Recent instructions have seen Alex act repeatedly as independent counsel for LPP material on high profile cases.

Further Information

Notable Cases

Civil Litigation

  • P v UK Insurance Ltd [2022].

Alex represented the Claimant throughout proceedings. At trial the Defendant sought to argue that the Claimant had unreasonably exited the matter form the Low Value Portal. The Defendant’s application was robustly opposed and was refused, the Judge finding no such unreasonable behaviour on the part of the Claimant. The Judge instead awarded indemnity costs against the Defendant for the stance adopted – for further detail on this case see Alex’s article which can be found here.

  • Mr W -v- Aviva Insurance Limited [2022]

Alex represented the Claimant at trial and had advised in conference. The Claimant was struck by a van in a neighbourly dispute. The Defendant made a late application to amend its pleaded case to assert fundamental dishonesty on the part of the Claimant. Despite denying liability and causation the Defendant settled the claim following an adjourned trial.

  • H v F [2022].

Alex represented the Claimant throughout proceedings following a motorcycle accident which left the Claimant with life-long injuries and a significantly reduced working capacity. The claim settled following service for a six-figure sum.

  • Mrs M -v- Primark [2022]

Alex represented the Claimant in applying for Relief from Sanctions for late service of Particulars in a Multi-Track claim. The Claimant had suffered significant psychological injury following a near fatal incident at work. The Defendant strongly opposed the application and liability was denied. Despite the Defendant’s opposition, the Judge granted relief from sanctions and made no order as to costs on the application.

  • B v John Sutch Cranes [2022]

Alex represented the Claimant in an action for damages arising out of a fall from a crane. The Claimant sustained permanent and intrusive injuries. The case involved hotly contested medical evidence as to the presence of medial gutter arthritis. The claim was successfully settled for a six figure sum at a JSM shortly before trial.

  • W v K [2021]

Alex represented a Claimant who was involved in a car versus pedestrian collision. The Claimant was left with chronic pain and required extensive rehabilitative treatment and housing adaptations. Liability was admitted however the Defendant sought to argue contributory negligence and accordingly accident reconstruction reports were commissioned. With the assistance of Simon Gorton QC the claim was compromised at a JSM on a seven figure lump sum basis.

  • H v N [2020].

Alex represented the Claimant throughout proceedings following a motorcycle accident which left the Claimant with life-long injuries. The claim settled at a JSM for a six figure sum.

  • P v Aviva [2019]

Alex represented a young man involved in an RTA. The Claimant sustained life changing injuries. Alex conducted conferences with the Claimant and various experts. The Defendant raised complex issues of medical causation and contributory negligence (intoxication, drug consumption and seatbelt issues). The Claim was successfully settled for a sum in excess of £150,000 shortly before the CCMC.

  • K v Hayles [2019]

Successful settlement of a motorcycling accident where medical causation of ongoing symptoms was challenged. Settlement figure secured in excess of £110,000.

  • F v Rossendale [2019]

Successful settlement of a motorcycling accident where future loss of earnings was complex and robustly challenged by the Defendant. Following conference with the Claimant Alex was able to advise upon and secure a six-figure settlement sum.

  • B v RC International [2018]

The Claimant was a lorry driver. The Claimant suffered a fall from his cab as a result of a spillage of oil. Unfortunately, by the date of trial and prior to any witness statement having been produced the Claimant had sadly deceased for unrelated reasons and the claim was advanced by his estate. Despite being unable to lead any direct witness evidence on factual causation the trial Judge accepted the Claimant’s case. The Defendant called seven witnesses, all of whom were cross-examined at length on the issues. The Judge concluded that the seven witnesses who appeared for the Defendant were of little assistance and that their evidence was contradictory and based predominantly on speculation. Judgement was found in favour of the Claimant and his estate was awarded a five-figure sum.


  • Mr R v Company A [2023]

Alex represented the Respondent/Defendant in a one-day final hearing heard in the County Court. The Claimant sought to argue breach of contract for non-payment of a bonus in the sum of £6,250. The Defendant argued that the bonus was (a) discretionary, and (b) the scheme rules had contractual effect and as the Claimant had provided notice to terminate employment before the bonus was due there was no entitlement to a Bonus for that Quarter. At trial the claims were dismissed.

  • AB v The Department for Work and Pensions [2022]

Alex represented the Respondent in a one-day preliminary hearing by CVP. The Claimant sought to establish disability status for a period longer than accepted by the Respondent. Following careful cross examination and focused submissions the Tribunal found that the Respondent’s position was to be preferred and that the Claimant did not satisfy the legal definition of disability under section 6 EA 2010 at the times alleged.

  • W v HM Prison Service [2022]

Alex represented the Respondent in a 4-day liability trial. The Claimant was dismissed for racial harassment having made a derogatory comment whilst watching ‘You’ve been framed’. A full investigation was conducted and the Claimant, who denied making the comment, was dismissed.  Following robust cross examination, the Claimant withdrew his claim prior to the completion of the Respondent’s evidence.

  • Otti v CCMP [2022]

Alex represented the Respondent in a 3 day trial. Following evidence and submissions the Tribunal (sitting with members) dismissed all complaints of victimisation as fanciful and without merit. An application for costs is being pursued on behalf of the Respondent, with the Court starting from the position that the Claimant has been unreasonable given the historical deposit orders made in the case – for further detail on the benefit of deposit orders see Alex’s article which can be found here.

  • Ali v DWP [2022]

Alex represented the Respondent in a one day preliminary hearing. The Claimant advanced a plethora of complaints against the Respondent. Following an application by the Respondent the Tribunal accepted that a vast number of the complains had no reasonable prospect of success and agreed that strike out was appropriate. Several further claims were subject to deposit orders. Judgment available here.

For further detail on the benefit of deposit orders see Alex’s article which can be found here.

  • G v Haird Ltd [2022]

Alex recently assisted the Employment team at Morecroft solicitors in representing a 19-year-old hairdressing apprentice who suffers from life-long diabetes, who was dismissed from her employment during the Covid-19 pandemic. Following a multi-day hearing the Tribunal panel found the Claimant’s complaints under section 15 and 20 of the Equality Act 2010 to be well founded. The Tribunal held that not only had the Respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments but had also dismissed the Claimant solely due to her requirement to shield. The Tribunal awarded the Claimant damages in excess of £18,000, including an ACAS uplift and an award for aggravated damages to reflect the manner in which the Respondent had sought to defend the claim. For further detail on this case see Alex’s article which can be found here.

  • Bennett v CCMP [2021]

Alex represented the Chief Constable. Following a multi day hearing the Tribunal rejected the Claimant’s complaints of constructive dismissal. The Tribunal found that the Respondent had not breached the implied term of trust and confidence (‘Malik’ term) and had in fact done all it could to encourage the continuance of an employment relationship. Complaints dismissed.

Judgment available here.

  • Kilby v DWP [2020]

Alex represented the Respondent in a 5 day remote trial. Following evidence and submissions the Tribunal (sitting with members) dismissed all complaints of discrimination.

  • Mr M Hawkins v The Secretary of State for Justice [2020]

Alex successfully represented the Respondent in striking out a claim for associative disability discrimination as having no reasonable prospect of success. Judgment available here.

  • G v L [2019]

The Claimant alleged that she had been discriminated against on the grounds of disability (including the menopause). Due to the Claimant’s medical conditions the matter was listed for a three-week final hearing. The parties were able to comprise the claims following a successful judicial mediation which had a significant cost benefit to the public purse.

  • Q v HCC [1] & LCC [2] [2019]

The Claimant was employed as a teacher. The Claimant alleged that his redundancy was a ‘sham’ and brought a complaint of unfair dismissal Following a three day final hearing the Tribunal rejected the complaints in their entirety and accepted the Respondent’s case, as presented by Alex, that there was a genuine redundancy situation and the Claimant’s dismissal was fair under 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 .

  • H v LCC [2019]

The Claimant was a locum social worker. The Claimant brought complaints of automatically unfair dismissal following the making of protected disclosures. Following a three-day final hearing the Tribunal (including panel members) unanimously rejected the complaints. Alex successfully argued that (a) the purported disclosures did not contain sufficient factual content and/or specificity such as is required to show one of the matters listed in subsection (1) of section 43B ERA 1996; (b) in any event, the Claimant did not hold a reasonable belief that the purported disclosures were in the public interest as expressly required by 43B ERA 1996; and (c) further, and in any event, the reason (or principal reason) for the Claimant’s dismissal was restructuring and not the purported disclosures as alleged. The tribunal focused its deliberations on the authorities of Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v. Geduld (Rev 1) [2009] UKEAT, and Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth [2018] EWCA Civ 1436. Complaints dismissed.


  • Mackie v CCMP [2022]

Following a 5 day Jury trial, where Alex represented the Chief Constable, the jury took less than 45 minutes to reject the Claimant’s version of events and the claim was dismissed. An application for costs followed, applying the principles of Brown -v- The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2019] EWCA Civ 1724.

  • H v CCMP [2022]

Following a 3-day trial, where Alex represented the Chief Constable, the Judge rejected the Claimant’s case and found that his arrest was necessary in the circumstances. An application for costs followed, applying the principles of Brown -v- The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2019] EWCA Civ 1724. Permission to appeal was refused by the trial judge.



“Alex is exactly the kind of Barrister you want to work with: knowledgeable, personable, great with clients and turns paperwork around really quickly. I heartily recommend Alex to others” – Nicola Bignell, Solicitor

“Alex is professional but approachable at the same time. His work is excellent, turnaround times impressive and my clients like him. I will be instructing Alex for many years to come” – Fergus Dalgarno, Solicitor

“We have been instructing Alex for the best part of a year following a personal recommendation. It became clear to us from the outset that he is very thorough with respect to the details of a case and is able to quickly identify strengths and weaknesses and provide solutions to problems. Alex has delivered excellent results for MST Legal in trials and applications and is able to turn around advices promptly. He is approachable and has gone the extra mile on cases, which has established him as trusted Counsel for our firm”. – Scott Bouch, Director of MST Legal

“Alex Jones is true professional, thorough and a complete pleasure to work with. He is always my first choice for any instruction. He provides detailed advice and drafting with a quick turnaround. He has a wealth of knowledge across all PI areas and is excellent at explaining things in a simple and concise manner. Simply could not recommend him more highly, he’s an absolute asset to have on any case” – Emma Oldham, Gowing Law

“What a fantastic days work, you wiped the floor with RC and I can’t thank you enough. The outcome well exceeded what I expected, and I have you to thank for that and on Sean’s behalf I thank you as well for getting justice. It’s been an absolute pleasure to know you and if I need representing again in the future you would be the first to call” – Client