Skip to main content
Image of Sarah Erwin-Jones

Sarah Erwin-Jones



+44 (0)115 976 6136


Sarah is our leading lawyer on redress, abuse and assault claims. Recognised by the Legal 500 since 2015 as a standout expert in child and adult abuse claims, as well as safeguarding advice, Sarah has a particular interest in working with social care, sports and faith organisations as well as many charities.      

As a result of her experience, Sarah has been asked to give evidence and advise clients in responding to public inquiries.  She dealt with the personal injury claim that followed the tragic death of Victoria Climbié and has been involved in a number of high-profile group actions, taking cases to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.   

She advises clients on risk management, child protection, human rights, public inquiries, redress schemes and Data Protection Act issues. 

Her experience in group actions and redress schemes has inevitably led her to have a real concern about litigating in a manner which is both compassionate for complainants and proportionate for our clients. She brings a genuine focus to managing litigation costs. 

Sarah sits as a Deputy Costs Judge in the SCCO. 


Featured experience

Claims concerning sports coaches

We have successfully defended several claims concerning abuse by coaches or those holding themselves out to be officials of sports clubs and associations.

Independent Children’s Services providers

We have advised providers on police investigations, public inquiries, Human Rights Act claims and peer-on-peer personal injury actions. Issues that arise include Liberty Safeguards, mental health, consent, and data protection.

Liability litigation

Sarah’s team is a leading provider of advice in this sector currently with three cases in the Court of Appeal and likely to go to the Supreme court. See our regular articles and updates for developments in the common law on childcare, fostering and the Human Rights Act.

Redress scheme advice

Advising various charities and local government bodies on the pros and cons of setting up a redress scheme and the insurance and costs consequences of them.

Acting for an insurance company

Acting for an insurance company within the context of the Goddard Inquiry.

Innovative approach

Innovative approach to watching briefs - it stopped claimant solicitors incurring costs, whilst at the same time ensuring that all parties were on a level playing field with the overriding objective.  As a result we were able to settle five claims without the need for medical evidence within eight weeks of a criminal trial concluding, saving our client between £20,000 and £40,000 on watching brief fees alone.

Obtaining a costs order

Obtaining a costs order against partially successful litigants in a Data Protection Act claim.  The damages were negligible, and the judge accepted that the Claimant acted irresponsibly, making serious allegations of misconduct against the Defendant’s school and its staff for which there was no factual support. An Issue Based Costs Order was given ordering that First and Second Claimants could recover 20% of their costs against the Defendant, whereas the Defendant could recover 80% of their costs against the First and Second Claimants.


You may be interested in...