'Clever all rounder' Daniel Tatton-Brown was called to the Bar in 1994 and has since built a wide-ranging employment focussed practice. Described as 'admirably thorough and very dependable on his feet" Daniel has for several years won accolades as one of the leading juniors in his field from the Legal 500, Chambers and Partners, and Legal Experts. He is said to offer 'carefully thought-out advice and no-nonsense advocacy', and to be particularly recommended for jurisdictional issues. He was, possibly misleadingly, once described in a directory entry as being "a bit of a bruiser".

Education and Training
Winchester College
Oriel College, University of Oxford, where Daniel studied P.P.E. gaining a 1st class BA Hons degree.
Postgraduate Diploma in Law – City University. London (1992-1993)
Date of Call: Middle Temple 1994
Appointments
Diplock Scholar (Middle Temple)
Treasury Counsel (C Panel) (April 1999)
Professional Associations
- Commercial Bar Association
- Employment Lawyers' Association
- Employment Law Bar Association
- Member of ELAAS Scheme.
Profile
Since being called to the Bar in 1994 Daniel Tatton-Brown has built up a practice which specialises in all aspects of employment law. The balance of Daniel's practice comprises professional negligence (particularly solicitors' negligence), business related contractual disputes, disputes involving breaches of directors' duties and/or duties of confidentiality and appeals (to the employment tribunal and administrative court) against CITB levies.
Daniel regularly appears in the more complex or valuable discrimination claims; employment related contractual disputes; injunctive proceedings (particularly restrictive covenants, confidentiality and garden leave injunctions); uncapped dismissal complaints and commercial disputes with an employment law angle. He also has a notable success rate in his appearances in the EAT and the Court of Appeal. In particular, he appeared in the leading CA case on employment tribunal costs orders, having secured for his client a costs order in excess of £90,000 against the investment banker claimant.
Away from work Daniel spends time messing around with his young family, who ensure that his dreams of completing a carve gybe and a respectable triathlon time remain hitherto unfulfilled.
Practice Areas and Case Law
Most of the reported cases Daniel has been involved in have concerned one or more aspects of employment law. He has a successful record on appeals: he represented the successful party in all bar one of the appeals listed below (the exception being an appeal in which he acted for the respondent, and which succeeded in part).
-Software 2000 Ltd Andrews [2007] ICR 825, [2007] IRLR 568 EAT. Elias J gave guidance on the correct approach to be possible Polkey reductions, following a multi-claimant tribunal hearing.
- McPherson v BNP Paribas [2004] IRLR 588. Probably the leading CA authority on costs orders by employment tribunals. Daniel acted for the employer who secured a costs order for £90k against the investment banker claimant.
- DHL Air (UK) Ltd v Wells CA Times 14/11/03. A successful appeal in an employment related claim in deceit. The CA gave case management guidance.
- Marlow v East Thames Housing Group Ltd [2002] IRLR 798. High Court PHI claim considering the duty of an employer, as a facet of the implied duty of trust and confidence, to sue an insurance company which refuses to made PHI payments in respect of one of its employees.
- Silvey v Pendragon [2001] IRLR 685, [2002] PLR 277 CA: A successful appeal in the CA on the assessment of damages for wrongful dismissal in the context of pension loss.
- Ojinnaka v Sheffield College EAT [2001] ICR Part 7. Daniel successfully resisted an appeal in a SDA case focussing on and revisiting the question of what is meant by a "detriment".
- Abbey National v Robinson EAT 20/11/00 New Law Online 5001110802. A constructive dismissal case in which EAT considering the inter-relationship of the “last straw” doctrine and the doctrine of waiver/affirmation.
- Davenport v Taptonholm for Elderly People Ltd 914/1/99 EAT IDS Brief 638. The EAT considered the circumstances in which third party pressure to dismiss can amount to "some other substantial reason".