Since calling to the bar, Jon has established a varied civil practice focused on delivering a prompt, high quality and practical service for his instructing solicitors.  His principal areas of interest include: public law, human rights, employment tribunals, commercial and property disputes, housing law, and professional regulatory compliance, e.g. RICS, FCA, PRA, FSCS, GMC, LSS, SPSO, CLD Standards Council for Scotland, and Ethical Standards Commission for Scotland. He has been instructed in matters before the Sheriff Court, Sheriff Appeal Court, Upper Tribunal, and Court of Session, including appellate litigation, e.g. the first successful judicial appeal against a decision of the Ethical Standards Commission for Scotland, and an education appeal to the Inner House. He has also acted in international child abduction litigation.

Jon is a graduate of Aberdeen and Strathclyde Universities, and also passed an academic year in law at Grenoble University, France. Before calling to the bar, he was a solicitor for almost two decades, latterly a solicitor advocate. He worked in Glasgow, Paisley, Ayr and the Highlands. Much of his solicitor career he spent in law centres, including as Head of Civil Litigation at Legal Services Agency in Glasgow, and as Principal Solicitor at Renfrewshire Law Centre, where his remit included advising local charities and small businesses, including family businesses, on various aspects of the law, including regulatory compliance, employer duties, and organisational restructuring.

Jon previously served as Secretary to the Scottish Association of Law Centres, and on the steering committee for the 2012 International Law Conference on Delict, which celebrated the 80th anniversary of Donoghue v Stevenson. He was also instrumental in setting up GRADE, a joint project with Citizens Advice Bureau, which helped individuals facing litigation in circumstances of financial hardship. He has spoken at numerous conferences and training events, taught at the University of the West of Scotland, taken part in consultations on legislative reform, and had several articles and book reviews published, including in the Journal of the Law Society of Scotland and the Smeal Review. He has also served as an ad hoc reporter to the Law Society of Scotland.

• Ad hoc Legal Assessor for The General Teaching Council for Scotland.
• Ad hoc reporter to the Law Society's Professional Conduct Sub-Committee.
• Contributor to Faculty Law Reform Committee for consultation on proposed legislative reforms.

• The Ticking Timebomb of Expert Certification
• Latin Legal Maxims and Their Role in Our Modern Law
• Is it Time that Criminal Damages Law Woke Up to Social Justice?
• Ben Wur Ain Inner Hoose - Scots in Scots Law
• The Jurisprudence of Jurisprudence (And Why Human Judges Can Never be Replaced by Robots)
• Treasure Trove
• TFC Junior Wins in Historic First Ever Successful Appeal Against Ethical Standards Commission
• Evictions in Scotland - Book Review
• Umbrellas & Parachutes - The SQA's Handling of Scotland's Coronavirus Exam Crisis
• Homelessness & Judicial Review: A Missed Opportunity for Reform
• Remote Hearings in the Days of Coronavirus
• Picking up the Pieces of Coronavirus Legislation & Regulation
• 'A Practical Guide to Public Law Litigation in Scotland' by Drummond, McCartney & Poole - Book Review

• Taylor & Fountain v M&M Theatrical Productions Ltd, Glasgow Employment Tribunal, 20 September 2024 (Case Nos.4107215/2023 & 4107216/2023) - Acting for the claimants in this open preliminary hearing in front of Judge Doherty on 16 May and 10 and 11 September 2024, where the claimants were actors recruited by the respondent's Scotland-based company to go on lengthy tours around the UK, performing shows at primary schools. The issue for determination was whether the claimants qualified for worker status in terms of s.230(3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘limb (b)'), which would in turn determine whether they also enjoyed certain other employment law rights, including under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, the Working Time Regulations 1998, and s.13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (right not to suffer unauthorised deductions from pay). Following evidence and debate, the tribunal found in the claimants' favour, i.e. to the effect that they were indeed workers at the material time of their theatrical tours. Supported by the actors' union, Equity, this represents a significant decision for them personally, and potentially also for similar touring actors at large, particularly as much other employment law jurisprudence tends towards actors being self-employed independent contractors without such rights. However, unlike in those other cases, in this case, the tribunal was particularly concerned for the wide-reaching extent of control that the respondent company exercised over the actors while on tour, including in respect of their own free time after performances, where they and most of their fellow actors had to reside in accommodation provided by the respondent, and to follow rules on the upkeep of that accommodation, as well as in respect of personal conduct, and even in respect of their uniform when not performing. The tribunal was also particularly concerned for their right to substitution, which, given the terms of the relevant clause in their contract, in effect, did not amount to any such right per se. Although the claimants had submitted invoices as though self-employed independent contractors, and were paid gross, whereupon they had to account to HMRC for tax, which was relevant, nonetheless that was only one factor, and not determinative on its own. Pimlico Plumbers Ltd & Another v Smith [2018] UKSC 29 and Uber BV & Others v Aslam & Others [2021] UKSC 5 were of particular relevance.

• ZA & MN v B, A, M & AI [2022] CSOH 38
  Acting for primary defenders, this is the Court's judgment on the substantive merits of the pursuers' primary conclusion, where they were previously allowed to take this to proof by the Inner House in terms of the previous opinion reported as A v B [2021] CSIH 52 (below). The facts were the same. This was an unusual and complex multi-party case of alleged international child abduction. The pursuers were the parents of four daughters who had fled comfortable household circumstances in Qatar in order to claim asylum in the UK on grounds of alleged physical abuse at the instance of their parents and eldest brother. The parents raised proceedings at the Outer House for a return order in respect of their youngest daughter, who was still a child. The pursuers' conclusion for the child's return was refused, the Court being satisfied that the child had suffered abuse in Qatar, and it not being better for her that the an order for return be granted than none, where evidence was led in respect of potential alternative arrangements and other measures for attempting to safeguard her in that country. Inter alia, the Court held: ‘[It is] concluded in any event that it would not be in M's best interests to relocate from Scotland to Qatar...' (para.147); and: ‘If returned to Qatar, M would be deprived of the care, company and society of her sisters, with whom she has lived closely all her life, and in whose care she has been for the last two years. For that to happen would be to inflict on M a new breach from people who are very important in her life, and to whom she is attached. No in person contact with them in Qatar would be possible. There is no realistic prospect that they will return to Qatar.' (para.165). This case was also interesting for a variety of other reasons, including: (1) its interrelationship with asylum law and human rights law (including the parents' human rights, including their right to a fair hearing in terms of Art.6 (hence the Inner House's earlier ruling at reclaiming)); (2) the necessity of hearing testimony from principal witnesses in Arabic through an interpreter; (3) the use of hybrid hearing measures, where principal participants in the proof appeared in the courtroom in person, yet while others attended remotely, including in other locations in Parliament House.

• Baff v Thorsson [2021], unreported, Upper Tribunal
  Successfully represented private landlord in this hearing for permission to appeal a decision of the Housing & Property Chamber. Success meant permission being refused to the tenant, and the landlord recovering his property. This case is of interest less for the substantive law than for the obiter dicta of the UT Judge (Sheriff Hay sitting qua UT Judge at Aberdeen Sheriff Court) in respect of difficulties arising out of remote hearings generally (paras.27 to 41 of his written decision, particularly para.41). The facts were straightforward. Parties agreed a private residential tenancy in late 2020. Soon after, the landlord's son returned from abroad whereupon the landlord sought to repossess the tenancy subjects so his son could move in there. Proceedings were raised at the F-tT on 4 March 2021 in terms of Ground 5 of Sch.3 to the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016. Parties appeared remotely at a case management discussion on 30 April 2021. No challenge was made by or for the tenant to the landlord's case, whether in terms of pre-litigation preliminaries, repossession criteria, or the overarching question of reasonableness. Instead, a more fundamental challenge was made to the F-tT's jurisdiction (in effect, a preliminary plea), yet absent particularisation. The F-tT continued the matter to another remote hearing on 11 June 2021, and issued directions which included directing the tenant to enrol written submissions. The tenant did not attend the next hearing, and did not enrol written submissions. Jurisdiction being pars judicis, the F-tT Judge disposed of this under reference to s.51 of the 2016 Act. Being satisfied as to jurisdiction, the Judge considered the substantive merits, effectively taking an inquisitorial approach. The F-tT found in the landlord's favour. The tenant appealed, claiming she had attempted to join the 11 June hearing, yet was let down by technology. The appeal process too was plagued by IT issues, or by suggestions of these. Eventually, the case came before the UT on 6 April 2022. In essence, the UT Judge's decision is predicated on the tenant's absence of defence, i.e. there was no prospect of any other outcome upon appeal in any event. At para.41, His Lordship observes, inter alia, ‘I do not consider it is enough for an appellant to appeal on the basis that communication difficulties had prevented their participation in a hearing before the F-tT. In any case where an appellant advances such a ground of appeal, in my view, the appellant must persuade the Upper Tribunal that the F-tT reached a decision in absence and had failed to address or consider any pertinent issue which was essential in law to the decision reached.

• A v B [2021] CSIH 52
  Instructed as junior counsel for the primary defenders/respondents in an unusual and complex multi-party case of alleged international child abduction. The pursuers/reclaimers were the parents of four daughters who had fled comfortable household circumstances in Qatar in order to claim asylum in the UK on grounds of alleged physical abuse at the instance of their parents and eldest brother. The parents had raised proceedings at the Outer House for a return order in respect of their youngest daughter, who was still a child. Following the Home Office's eventual recognition of their refugee status, one of the other defenders successfully moved for dismissal of the conclusion for a return order on grounds that it had become academic and redundant, where, even if the Court were to grant this, it could not be given practical effect as that would constitute refoulment of a refugee, and as such would be prohibited by international treaty. This caselaw report is the Inner House's opinion on the pursuers' reclaiming motion (appeal), where the appeal bench overturned the Lord Ordinary's decision to dismiss the conclusion, and therefore remitted the case back down to the Outer House for proof.

• Shaw v Demirezen [2021], unreported, Jedburgh Sheriff Court
  Represented pursuers as owners of a residential flat (formerly a guesthouse) in an action raised by them against the owner of an adjoining fast food takeaway for the removal of a large outside ventilation system. This consisted of metal sections of ducting attached to the takeaway brickwork. It was not physically attached to the pursuers' building in any way. However, it encroached into the common airspace above a side passageway, which was the only means of access to the flat. It also hindered maintenance of the property, e.g. by rendering it impossible to set ladders against the wall in order to clean the gutters. The pursuers had acquired title in 2007. The previous owners of the takeaway had installed the ventilation system in or around 2010. The current owner had bought the takeaway in 2018. The pursuers had made numerous attempts to market their property over the years, but without attracting any interest. They took the position that the ventilation system was deterring prospective buyers. The takeaway owner defended these proceedings on the basis that the pursuers had personally barred themselves from litigating against him by reason of acquiescence and/or mora and taciturnity (silent delay), or in any event it would be inequitable to him to require removal of the ventilation system where this might result in the takeaway's closure. The sheriff held in the pursuers' favour, ordering the takeaway owner to remove the encroachment. He found that, notwithstanding the delay in litigating to this end, the pursuers had always opposed the ventilation system, and had repeated their opposition to it over the years since its installation, both to the previous owners of the takeaway and to its current owner. They had not acquiesced or lost their right of action through silent delay. It was acceptable that they had waited until now to raise their action where they had previously not been in a position to afford to do so. In the circumstances, it was not inequitable to require removal.

• Paul Mack v Standards Commission for Scotland [2021], unreported, Sh.Ppl.N.Strathclyde
  Represented appellant in first ever successful appeal against SCS in respect of its decision to remove an elected councillor from office following allegations of breaches of the code of ethics, where it was held SCS had exercised its discretion unreasonably in failing to adjourn proceedings at first instance, the councillor having reported he required to self-isolate under Covid-19 restrictions.

• Miller v Eastern Airways (UK) Ltd [2021], Employment Tribunal (Aberdeen) 4100484/21(V)
  Represented respondent airline in employment tribunal proceedings raised against it by former employee, who claimed unfair dismissal and age discrimination following his selection for redundancy during the Coronavirus pandemic. The respondent was a modest-sized domestic airline operating passenger flights across the UK. It had employed the claimant as an aviation engineer at Aberdeen International Airport alongside a number of other engineering staff based there and elsewhere in the UK. His case consisted, in part, of challenging redundancy per se, where he attempted to argue that furlough was more apt. He also challenged the respondent's use of a redundancy selection matrix, which compared and contrasted his and the other engineers' respective engineering and avionics licences and airline approvals under the EASA system (European Aviation Safety Agency). The case proceeded to a hearing on evidence and legal submissions, including detailed discussion of the EASA system. Following this hearing, the tribunal adjourned for consideration, and ultimately issued its judgment unanimously dismissing the claim in its entirety. Such was the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the aviation industry that the respondent had found itself in a legitimate redundancy situation. It was not obliged to furlough engineering staff. And, its use of a redundancy selection matrix was appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances. It had not discriminated on grounds of age.