Jonathan Goulding

Jonathan practices in Consumer Law, Food Law ,Life Sciences, Business, Financlal and Regulatory Crime and Health and Safety.

GSL Ep.32: Powers: test purchase and surveillance

June 6, 2023

Gough Square Live, Episode 37: Due Diligence Defences

January 9, 2024

Gough Square Live, Ep29: Time limited offences & information required in an application for a summons

March 7, 2023

SAFE 2023

October 5, 2023

GSL Episode 46: A Food Law Case Update

November 5, 2024 | 11:00 am - 11:30 am

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act – transforming consumer enforcement

November 28, 2024 | 1:30 pm

Chambers & Partners ranks Gough Square as Number 1 for Consumer Law

November 3, 2023

Gough Square top-ranked by Chambers & Partners 2025

October 18, 2024

• Civil Redress Advice. In 2022 involved in an advisory capacity concerning the scope of civil redress pursuant to Part 4A Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008;
• Higher Education Contract Terms  in 2022 involved in an advisory capacity for providers in light of  CMA guidance;
• R v E Ltd and others 2021. Successful prosecution of a flight delay claims company for fraudulent trading. The company and two directors pleaded guilty resulting in suspended sentences and compensation for a large number of consumers;
• City of London Corporation v T A S Ltd and WA July/August 2021. Successful prosecution in the Crown Court at Southwark (sitting at Prospero House) of an accountancy company and one of its directors((WA). The Defendants were convicted after a month long trial of fraudulent trading and misleading advertising.The case involved false representations to applicants for trainee accountant positions;
• SCC v S Ltd 2021 Defending a Food Hygiene case involving consideration of the information provided by the prosecution in an application for a summons. Successful out of court resolution;
• West Sussex CC v C 2020  Defending in a complex case involving the the Food Information Regulations 2014 and allergens. Successful out of court resolution;
• LBWF v A Ltd April 2020.Successful opposition to a local authorities application for a Hygiene Emergency Prohibition Order against a food retailer following a closure notice;
• Suffolk CC v Waters and Anchor Mobility Limited October 2019. Represented the prosecution in a three week trial at Ipswich Crown Court. Mr.Waters was convicted of Fraudulent Trading and both defendants were convicted of 15 unfair trading offences. Involved the sale of mobility furniture to vulnerable and elderly consumers and the failure to fulfil orders after taking money off them;
• West Sussex CC v W  May 2019.Defending a major retailer in respect of selling food beyond its use by date. Successful mitigation  in the Magistrates’ Court resulted in financial penalty well below that envisaged by the guideline;
• Middlesbrough BC v P Ltd 2018 and March 2019 .Complex issue pursuant to the information requirements under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2028 in relation to second hand vehicles. Successful appeal from Magistrates to Crown Court;
• CMA v E, 2018/19. Advising a business in relation to the CMA investigation into  online hotel booking sites;
• Liverpool  CC v R Ltd 2018 Defending restaurant in respect of Food Hygiene Regulations. Successful representations at Magistrates’ Court court ensured a financial penalty  less than prescribed in the guidelines;
• LB Enfield v M Ltd April 2018.Defending a major retailer in respect of Food Hygiene allegations. Successful negotiation and mitigation  at Highbury Corner Magistartes’ Courtof financial penalty to a level below that envisaged by the sentencing guideline;
• HSE v C Ltd ( October 2017): represented a company in the Magistrates’ Court facing Health and Safety charges arising out of work at height and lone working issues in the cleaning of an industrial hopper machine. A guilty plea that required close scrutiny of the recently implemented definitive Health and Safety sentencing guidelines. Successfully argued that the matter should be considered as medium culpability and harm category 2 whereas the HSE had contended for high and harm category 1;
• LB Ealing v TRS Cash and Carry Ltd (Isleworth Crown Court, September 2017): successful defence of a food retailer facing an allegation of placing spices on the market containing salmonella. Case listed for a two week trial, but prosecution offered no evidence following further defence testing and representations;
• Stockton B C v R and B (Teeside Crown Court, April 2017): successful defence of the operator of a butcher’s business alleged to have caused a serious e-coli food poisoning outbreak from food stuffs it sold. A very complex case involving expert microbiological and epidemiological evidence. The case was listed for a two week trial, but following defence representations the prosecution offered no evidence;
• LB Enfield v A Ltd ( Highbury Magistrates’ Court, March 2017): very close scrutiny of the recently implemented Food Safety Sentencing Guidelines in respect of food hygiene offences. Successfully argued on a guilty plea that the appropriate culpability and harm categories were medium, whereas the prosecution had argued for high in both;
• Surrey CC v Z Ltd and others (Guildford Crown Court, July 2016): defence of salesmen indicted with their employer company on an indictment containing allegations of fraud and allegations under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. No evidence was offered in July 2017;
• Wandsworth LBC v Caffe Nero Group Ltd (Wimbledon Magistrates’ court, March 2016): successful due diligence defence; food safety offences; wire in panini ingested by consumer; unauthorised use by employee, in breach of training and systems;
• A v B Ltd (High Court, Ch Div, 2015): represented corporate defendant in a  fraudulent misrepresentation trial concerning land in the Cayman islands; settled after 8 days of trial;
• North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service v Tokyo Industries (York) Ltd and Aaron Mellor; Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue Service v Aaron Mellor  (York Crown Court, 2015): successful prosecution concerning serious breaches of fire safety legislation at night clubs in York and Lincoln. The corporate defendant was fined £30,000 for guilty pleas in the  York matter and the individual defendant was fined £76,000 plus £67,000 costs after a three day trial in Lincoln;
• Lincolnshire CC v Courton Green (Lincoln Magistrates’ Court, 2015): prosecution under animal welfare and animal by product regulations; convictions resulted  after a 5 day trial that involved the consideration of four expert witnesses;
• Lincolnshire County Council v  McKenzie (Lincoln Crown Court, 2015): successful prosecution after a three day trial of the proprietor of a tyre sales outlet for selling dangerous tyres in breach of the General Product Safety Regulations 2005; the defendant received a 9 month suspended prison sentence;
• Lincolnshire CC v Iftakhar Ahmed  (Lincoln Crown Court, 2014): successful prosecution of a large scale retailing operation involving the sale of counterfeit  training shoes  and clothes from market stalls in Skegness; convicted after  a week long trial, the defendant was imprisoned for 30 months  and later made the subject of a £680,000 confiscation order;
• Office of Fair Trading v F Ltd (2014): defended F Ltd in the OFT’s investigation into alleged misleading reference pricing in the furniture retail sector;
• R v X Ltd [2013] EWCA 818: the Court of Appeal decided that a “commercial practice” can arise out of an isolated incident;
• R v Scottish and Southern Energy Ltd Plc [2012] CTLC 1: the leading Court of Appeal case on the true construction of the concepts of “commercial practice” and “trader”;
• Barnsley M.B.C v A Stores Ltd (2013): Jonathan successfully argued that the Magistrates Court should retain jurisdiction in a health and safety case where an employee slipped in a freezer, despite strenuous attempts by the prosecution to have the case committed for sentence;
• A Ltd (2013, Bournemouth Magistrates’ Court): Jonathan successfully argued that the sectoral package travel directive should apply in the context of a package holiday case, rather than the 2008 Regulations;
• Isle of Anglesey County Council v Ar Ltd (2012, Caernarfon Crown Court): represented a toy producer in a successful appeal against conviction in a product safety case;
• R v Alan Rich Seafoods Ltd (2010): successful prosecution following a three week Crown Court trial of a food business and its proprietor for serious breaches of the Food Hygiene (England) Regulations 2006 and the Animal By Products Regulations 2005;
• West Berkshire CC v C  (2008), Reading Magistrates’ Court): Jonathan successfully defended a nursery against an allegation that contaminated swiss roll had  caused a salmonella outbreak;
• Kilhey Court Hotels Ltd v Wigan M.B.C (2005) 169 JP 1: Jonathan successfully acted for a hotel group before the Administrative Court. It involved the issue of when a due diligence notice is required to be served under section 21(5) Food Safety Act 1990 and the Court’s power to substitute its own findings for one of the Court below without needing to remit;
• Defra v Asda Stores (2004) 168 JP 1: Jonathan  acted for Asda in the House of Lords resisting Defra’s appeal in relation to whether regulations relating to  the grading of fruits and vegetables had been validly brought into force;
• Empress Cars v Environment Agency [1999] 2 AC 22: Jonathan appeared together with Fred Philpott in the House of Lords in the leading case on the meaning of ‘cause’ in water pollution cases.

Contributing editor: author of Unfair Commercial Practices chapter in ‘Consumer and Trading Standards Law and Practice’ (‘the Pink Book’), Lexis Nexis (2018)

Contributing editor: author of Financial Conduct Authority chapter in ‘Modern Financial Regulation’ (‘the Blue Book’), Jordan (2013)

Jonathan also writes articles for such organisations as Trading Standards Monthly, Westlaw Insight and Lexis Nexis Analysis.

• “Highly experienced, knowledgeable and adds great value to every case he is involved in” Legal 500 2023(Consumer)
• “Clever,willing and able, he’s a very supportive advocate”Chambers & Partners 2023
• “ A consummate professional, who is thoroughly knowledgeable and offers sensible and pragmatic advice” Chambers and Partners 2023
• “Detailed, methodical and very well prepared.” Legal 500 2020 (Consumer)
• “Jonathan is extremely approachable and friendly, thorough and has a keen desire to make sure every possible twist and turn in a case is anticipated and planned for.” “He is very good in court, effortlessly charming and hugely experienced.” Chambers & Partners 2018
• “Excellent at cross-examination and very thorough in preparation.” Legal 500 2016
• “He is a very good operator, he knows his stuff.” Chambers & Partners 2016
• “An expert in his field, technically savvy and commercially aware.” Legal 500 2015
• “He is very commercial, pragmatic and tactically astute.” “He’s calm at all times and really knows his stuff.” Chambers & Partners 2015

• Called Inner Temple 1984,LLB Manchester University
• Member of the Food Law Group and the Health and Safety Lawyers Association
• An elected member of the Bar Council 2017-20 and on its Law Reform Committee 2013-2022 and Education and `training Committee 2017-2020

Jonathan is authorised to accept Direct Access instructions and will act on this basis for businesses and professionals

Please see a short form of my privacy notice here: Short Form Privacy Notice

My full privacy notice may be viewed here: Full Privacy Notice