• The James Crouch Award (Gray's Inn BVC Scholarship)

• University of Nottingham Law Graduates' Association Moot Prize

• Harold Wyatt Scholarship (2005-7)

• The Harry Street Prize (Tort Prize)

• The Oxford University Press Law Prize (First in Year: 2005-6)

Legal 500 2025: (Employment) “Nathaniel is extremely calm, practical and organised. His cross examination style is very effective and he is reassuring and friendly with witnesses.”

Chambers & Partners 2025: (Employment) "Nathaniel provides stunningly good closing submissions." "Nathaniel is an incredibly strong advocate and adds huge value to cases." "Nathaniel has exceptional advocacy skills."

Legal 500 2024: (Employment) Nathaniel’s advocacy exudes calmness and authority. He cuts to the key issues and clients are very reassured by him.”

Chambers & Partners 2024: (Employment) "I enjoy working with Nathaniel. He is switched on, explains complex legal matters in a way such that clients and witnesses can understand, and is always well prepared and thorough." "He is very responsive and engaging and has a great approach with clients. He breaks complex issues down and knows exactly what he wants to do and goes and does it. Nothing is too much for him." "Nathaniel puts a great deal of care and attention into every element of a case." “Nathaniel Caiden has an impressive reputation as an appellate advocate, with experience acting for both claimants and respondents. He has a broad employment practice but he can boast particular experience in discrimination and worker status cases.”

Legal 500 2023: “Nathaniel is an excellent barrister, who is super-intelligent and always helpful. He takes a real pride in his work, is a great communicator, and he is an excellent advocate. Nathaniel also has a great way with clients, who value his friendly and down-to-earth manner.”

Chambers & Partners 2023: "Nathaniel is always very well prepared, commercially conscious, technically minded and a very able advocate." "Nathaniel is superb. He is wise and brave and has a wonderful manner with clients."

Legal 500 2022: "A real gem who will go out of his way to help. Always seems to be available, and has superb analysis of complex claims."

Chambers & Partners 2022: "His written work is well structured and concise, and he is particularly good on the intersection of employment with EU law. He is also an excellent advocate who is across the detail and he is always willing to contribute to strategy and find the commercial way forward in a case." "Nathaniel is an incredibly helpful barrister, who is responsive and gets on top of legal claims quickly."

• Appointed as Fee-Paid Employment Judge (2021)

• Industrial Law Society (ILS)

• Employment Law Bar Association (ELBA)

• Employment Lawyers Association (ELA)

• Human Rights Lawyers Association (HRLA)

• Contributing author to “Termination of Employment” (Julian Yew ed, Bloomsbury Publishing); authored Chapter C2 “Procedures on Dismissal” (available as looseleaf and on PLC website).

• Contributor to Emplaw Online (www.emplaw.co.uk )

• Contributor to PLC Employment – “ET1 for race discrimination and unfair dismissal”, “ET3 for race discrimination and unfair dismissal” (Online resource)

• Lexis Nexis Q&A Panel Author in Employment

LLB (Hons) from the University of Nottingham

• Mohammed v Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust [2023] EAT 16; [2023] ICR 587 – EAT case concerning unless orders and the striking out of claims. The case is cited in Harvey on Industrial Relations & Employment Law (Division PI Practice and Procedure at [404.02]).

• Hilaire v Luton Borough Council [2022] EAT 166; [2023] IRLR 122 – EAT case concerning reasonable adjustments in disability discrimination and in particular the issue of causation (whether the disability was the reason for the substantial disadvantage suffered). The case is cited in Harvey on Industrial Relations & Employment Law (Division L Equal Opportunities at [400.02]).

• Kocur v Angard Staffing Solutions Ltd (no.3) [2022] EWCA Civ 189; [2022] ICR 854; [2022] IRLR 437 – Court of Appeal case concerning the right of an agency worker to be informed of a vacant posts under the Agency Worker Regulations 2010. The case is cited in the IDS Employment Law Handbook on Atypical and Flexible Working (at [1.90]]) and Harvey on Industrial Relations & Employment Law (Division AI Categories of Worker at [213.02]).

• Tabidi v BBC [2020] EWCA Civ; [2020] IRLR 702 – Court of Appeal case concerning the burden of proof, comparators and costs orders where Nathaniel was the advocate on behalf of the Respondent in the Court of Appeal and at all stages below. The case is cited in the White Book Volume 2 – at [3O-3.2].

• Kocur v Royal Mail (no.2) [2020] ICR 1541; [2020] IRLR 732 – EAT case concerning the meaning of ‘agency worker’ within the Agency Worker Regulations 2010. The case is in Harvey on Industrial Relations & Employment Law (Division AI Categories of Worker at [196.03] and IDS Employment Law Handbook on Atypical and Flexible Working (at [1.76]).

• Bessong v Pennine Care NHS Foundations Trust [2020] IRLR 4 junior to Karon Monaghan KC in an EAT case concerning the scope of third-party harassment and the interpretation of the Equality Act 2010 harassment provisions (having regard to the underlying EU directive). The case is cited in the IDS Employment Law Handbook on Discrimination at Work at [18.118]-[18.119] and [29.40]) and in Harvey on Industrial Relations & Employment Law (Division L Equal Opportunities at [464]).

• Kocur v Royal Mail (no.1) [2018] IRLR 388, [2018] ICR 1126; and [2019] EWCA Civ 1185, [2019] IRLR 933, [2020] ICR 170 - the first appellate case in which the EAT considered the central provision to the Agency Worker Regulations 2010, regulation 5, which provides that agency workers should have the same basic working and employment conditions (as defined by the regulations) as they would have if they were directly recruited. - Nathaniel appeared against leading counsel in the EAT and was led by Caspar Glyn KC in the Court of Appeal. The case is cited in IDS Employment Law Handbook on Atypical and Flexible Working (at [1.142]-[1.144], [1.134]-[1.137] and in Harvey on Industrial Relations & Employment Law (Division AI Categories of Workers at [210]).

• Lancaster & Duke Ltd v Wileman [2019] ICR 125, [2019] IRLR 112 case in which EAT were concerned with s.86 Employment Rights Act 1996, right statutory minimum notice, and statutory provisions concerning the extensions of the effective date of termination. The EAT concluded that the statute should be interpreted to mean there is no extension to the effective date of termination where an employer is entitled to dismiss summarily. The case is cited in IDS Employment Law Handbook on Contracts of Employment (at [14.90]), Chitty on Contracts 33rd Edition (at [40-223]), and in Harvey on Industrial Relations & Employment Law (Division DI Unfair Dismissal at [746]).

• Luton Borough Council v Haque [2018] ICR 1388 appellate case determining how extension of time is calculated following ACAS Early Conciliation under s.207B Employment Rights Act 1996 and 140B Equality Act 2010. The case is cited in Harvey on Industrial Relations & Employment Law (Division PI Practice and Procedure at [290.05]) and IDS Employment Law Handbook on Employment Tribunal Practice and Procedure (at [3.41]-[3.42] and [5.43]).

• Pickwell and another v Pro Cam CP Ltd [2016] EWHC 1304 (QB); [2016] IRLR 761 junior to Jacques Algazy KC in High Court restrictive covenant case. The case is cited in Employment Covenants and Confidential Information: Law, Practice and Technique, as well as in Harvey on Industrial Relations & Employment Law (Division AII Contract of Employment at [196.02]).

• ICTS UK Ltd v Mahdi [2016] ICR 274; [2016] IRLR 113 TUPE case in which EAT established that whilst intention as to whether a service provision change is a ‘single event or task of short term duration' is determined at the time of the service provision change, this does not preclude a tribunal from considering evidence of matters after the change to help determine the intention at the time. The case also considered how the burden of proof operates for the ‘single event or task of short term duration' exception. The case is cited in Harvey on Industrial Relations & Employment Law (Division F Transfer of Undertaking at [73.09]) and in IDS Employment Law Handbook on Transfer of Undertakings (at [1.146]).

• Salmon v Castlebeck Care [2015] ICR 735; [2015] IRLR 189 EAT case establishing that where an employer decides to allow an employee's appeal against dismissal that decision automatically revives the contract of employment without the need for either an express decision to ‘reinstate' or for communication of the decision (in contrast to the situation when dismissing an employee which requires communication). The case is cited in Harvey on Industrial Relations & Employment Law (Division DI Unfair Dismissal at [376]-[377]) and in IDS Employment Law Handbook on Contracts of Employment (at [14.77]-[14.78]) and on Transfer of Undertakings (at [2.127]).

• Ladak v DRC Locums [2014] IRLR 851 appeal in the EAT concerning the definition of costs in employment tribunals; confirms that ‘in-house' legal costs fall within definition of costs and are recoverable. The case is cited in Harvey on Industrial Relations & Employment Law (Division PI Practice and Procedure Continuity of Employment at [1094]) and IDS Employment Law Handbook on Employment Tribunal Practice and Procedure (at [20.7]).

• Williams v Ministry of Defence [2013] EqLR 27 appeal in the EAT concerning the jurisdiction of tribunals to hear discrimination cases under ss.120-121 Equality Act 2010 which also included the issue of whether regulations relevant to the armed forces internal complaints procedure breached Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950. The case is cited in Harvey on Industrial Relations & Employment Law (Division L Equal Opportunities at [738]) and IDS Employment Law Handbook on Discrimination at Work (at [35.9]).

• Lemonious v Church Commissioners [2013] All ER (D) 199 (Jun) appeal and cross-appeal in the EAT concerning possibility of a finding of 100% contributory conduct and costs. The case is cited in Harvey on Industrial Relations & Employment Law (Division DI Unfair Dismissal at [2751]-[2760]) and IDS Employment Law Handbook on Unfair Dismissal (at [14.19], [17.186], [17.190]).

• Birmingham City Council v Abdulla [2012] UKSC 47; [2012] ICR 1419; [2013] IRLR 38; [2012] EqLR 1147 junior to Paul Epstein KC and Louise Chudleigh in a Supreme Court appeal concerning the ability of the High Court to strike out equal pay claims brought in that forum. The case is cited in Harvey on Industrial Relations & Employment Law (Division K Equal Pay at [657]-[659] and Division PI Practice and Procedure at [75]) and IDS Employment Law Handbook on Equal Pay (at [9.12]-[9.16]).

• Commission for Equality and Human Rights v Griffin [2010] EWHC 3343 (Admin); [2011] EqLR 290 junior to Robin Allen KC in the Commission's application for committal to prison of representatives of the BNP. The case is cited in Halsbury's Laws of England – Contempt of Court (Volume 22 (2019) 5th Edition at [83]).