Jonathan Blunden is a Partner in our Dispute Resolution team. He joined Sharpe Pritchard in July 2023.
We spent five minutes with Jonathan to learn more about him and the work he does.
Jonathan Blunden is a Partner in our Dispute Resolution team. He joined Sharpe Pritchard in July 2023.
We spent five minutes with Jonathan to learn more about him and the work he does.
I’m a partner in the disputes team, and my practice is focused on central government. Most of my time is spent working with government departments on high-profile policy decisions: helping to shape them so they can withstand scrutiny, and defending them when they’re challenged, usually by way of judicial review. I also act for corporate clients in regulated sectors such as defence who need to navigate, or sometimes challenge, government decision-making.
I tend to get in early to deal with whatever has come in overnight, and from there the day is usually a mix of internal and client meetings. Our team is generally in the office, which I value: it means we talk things through properly, and not just about work. I aim to leave between five and six and try to keep evenings free unless something really can’t wait.
I’d love to be able to say, but I can’t. A good deal of my work for government is sensitive, and the most interesting matters are usually the ones I’m least able to talk about. What I can say is that it is rarely dull.
Defensible decision-making. Government clients come to me when they’re about to take a difficult decision and want to know whether it will hold up, and how to make it more robust. When a claim does land, they want it managed strategically rather than simply litigated. Beyond that, procurement challenges make up a good share of my work.
The Procurement Act 2023, and how challenges under the new regime develop as the market tests its limits. More fundamentally, I’m interested in how the courts will cope with AI-driven litigation. When the cost of producing a claim falls dramatically, the volume and character of challenges will change with it, and it isn’t yet clear that the system is ready for that.
That judicial review is about whether a decision was right. It isn’t. It’s about whether it was lawfully made.
We do very interesting work in a civilised way. Those two things don’t always go together in the legal profession.
Don’t arrive with fixed ideas about what you want to do. In practice, people tend to find their area in ways they didn’t expect, often because of the people they work with or a matter that happens to land on their desk. Stay open to that.
I was originally going to join the army. I got quite a long way through the process before being failed on medical grounds, which rather proves the point about keeping an open mind.
I’m a qualified ski instructor.
The Rest is History podcast.
“…not being in court. For someone who works in litigation, I’m very rarely there, and I like to think that’s a sign of success! The best outcome for my clients is usually that they never have to be.”
Partner
