Chambers & Partners 2025: "Andrew is intellectually brilliant." "Andrew is a brilliant advocate: very technical and hot on every single point." "Andrew comes up with creative arguments and is someone I can turn to." (Employment Law, Band 6)

Legal 500 2025: “He is a fierce litigator.” (Employment Law, Tier 4)

Chambers & Partners 2024: “Andrew Watson is commended by instructing solicitors for his deep knowledge of employment law. He has acted for a variety of claimants and respondents in discrimination and unfair dismissal claims.” "Andrew has been a pleasure to work with. His opening notes are detailed and well presented, and clients are often reassured by his calm and methodical approach." "Andrew Watson is an all-star player. He is hugely talented but backs this up with a work rate that is beyond impressive, combined with his ability on his feet. A real talent." (Employment Law, Band 6)

Legal 500 2023: “Andrew is an excellent advocate and an all-round intellectual and practical talent. He has a natural manner with clients, who can always trust that he will do an excellent job.” (Employment Law, Tier 5)

Chambers & Partners 2023: “Andrew is incredibly thorough and a formidable advocate.” “Andrew displays a keen attention to detail and is meticulous in his drafting and advocacy.” (Employment Law, Band 6)

Legal 500 2022: “Andrew is confident, has a good grasp of the issues and legal complexities of the case, and is personable to deal with.”

BA (Hons), Law, Fitzwilliam College, University of Cambridge

LLM, University College London

Bar Professional Training Course, Kaplan Law School

Employment & Discrimination:

N v A Psychiatric Hospital (2023): acted for the successful Respondent resisting an application for interim relief by the former Medical Director, a consultant psychiatrist.

Y v An NHS Foundation Trust and 3 Ors (2023 and ongoing): acting for the Trust in a novel High Court claim brought by a clinical psychologist who was suspended and investigated following (contested) allegations that he failed to disclose safeguarding allegation. Claims against the Trust are in contract, tort, and under articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR. Claimant has intimated a substantial six-figure loss of earnings claim.

Yang v Credit Agricole Corporate & Investment Bank (2022): acted for the Claimant, led by Carolyn D’Souza, in a highly-contested City claim brought by a gold futures trader dismissed for failing to escalate a risk arising from volatility in the gold market at the start of Covid-19. The ET upheld his unfair dismissal claim with 1/3 contributory fault and a single claim of race discrimination.

B and 3 Ors v Government Legal Department (2022-ongoing): acting for B, one of four claimants in this joined claim. B is a successful government lawyer who brings a victimisation claim arising from complaints he made about bullying, harassment and discrimination within the GLD. B has suffered a serious psychiatric injury as a result of his treatment and has a poor prognosis leading to a substantial six-figure loss of earnings claim. 38-day liability hearing in autumn 2024.

Robson v NGP Utilities Ltd (2021): represented the successful claimant in a harassment and disability discrimination claim. The Tribunal made an award for aggravated damages and ordered the respondent to pay a financial penalty under s.12 ETA 1996.

Banerjee v Royal Bank of Canada [2021] ICR 359 (EAT): instructed by the Claimant (led by Carolyn D’Souza) in this appeal on the scope of a tribunal’s power to reconsider a decision of its own motion when invited to do so by a party.

Craig v Bob Lindfield & Sons Ltd [2016] ICR 527 (EAT): instructed by the Claimant in this appeal about whether there was an implied term that contractual lay-off powers can only be exercised for a reasonable period. The EAT confirmed the answer was no, settling a conflict between two earlier authorities.

Z v A [2014] IRLR 244 (EAT): represented the Claimant through FRU resisting a liability appeal in an unfair dismissal case where the Claimant was dismissed for an unsubstantiated historic child abuse allegation. The EAT decided that the ET was correct to conclude that this did not amount to some other substantial reason of the kind justifying dismissal; principles set out in A v B and Leach v Ofcom explained. The claimant’s remedy appeal engaging the Johnson exclusion zone was dismissed.

Personal Injury

G v An Insurer (2023): instructed for the Claimant in this workplace stress claim against a large insurance company. Settled at a JSM shortly before trial on favourable terms.

C v B (2023): quantum-only RTA. Instructed for Defendant. Claimant is a consultant cardiologist who claims to have suffered permanent psychiatric harm which has left him unable to continue his private practice. Claim pleaded at £1.4M. Settled at a JSM on favourable terms.

B v A (2023): liability and quantum accident at work. Instructed for Claimant, who suffered a life-changing knee dislocation injury with an imminent need for knee replacement surgery and 1-2% lifetime risk of amputation, following a slipping accident at work. Claim valued at high six figures with a claim for provisional damages.

S v A Bank (2022): instructed for the Claimant. Workplace stress claim by former equities trader whose claim was that he had suffered a serious psychiatric illness as a result of a campaign of bullying and harassment by his superior. The claim had significant litigation risks with respect to breach of duty, causation and quantum of future loss. Settled at a JSM prior to issue for £1M.

K v W (2022-ongoing): liability and quantum accident at work. Instructed for the Claimant, who suffered serious orthopaedic injuries including a knee injury after falling from a ladder whilst descending from scaffolding. The claim is pre-issue but the Claimant is likely to have suffered a permanent restriction on his ability to work, leading to a valuation in the mid to high six figures.

J v An Accountant (2021-2023): acting for the Claimant, a manager at a large accountancy firm, in a claim for serious psychiatric harm arising from bullying and harassment by a partner of the firm. The claim is pleaded at £3M+ including a substantial claim for career-long future loss of earnings. Settled at a JSM on very favourable terms.