Based at Thompsons Solicitors’ Manchester centre, Jon Grundy is a highly experienced lawyer specialising in serious injuries, many of which are life-changing.

Jon oversees colleagues in the serious injuries department, keeping a close eye on the progress of cases, ensuring that clients are kept informed about the progress of their claims.

Jon is responsible for cases involving psychological trauma and a range of orthopaedic injuries to all parts of the body including the brain. Some clients have undergone amputations.

The caseload is drawn from as far apart as London, the north west of England and Cumbria and can involve employer’s, personal and owner’s liability. Sometimes claims have to be taken to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, a state-sponsored organisation which provides compensation for the victims of violent crime.

Jon has accumulated a wide range of legal experience since he qualified as a solicitor in 1998, working on behalf of claimants, but also for defendants which has given him a valuable insight into the way in which claims are opposed. Before qualifying he worked for seven years at a large insurance company (now operating as Aviva) where he was a liability claims inspector and training officer in the personal injury department.

Jon greatly values Thompsons’ philosophy which means the firm only ever represents claimants and never those who may be responsible for the injuries or their insurance companies.

He also values its approach to clients, ensuring they are treated with respect and that they are kept fully informed about the progress of their claims. Jon says that other firms for which he has worked, put much greater stress on profitability than on caring for clients.

Outside working hours, Jon spends much of his time with his two young children.


 A woman sustained serious multiple fractures to her right leg when her motorbike was hit head-on by a car which swerved into her lane.

The client also suffered a severe psychological impact because the crash brought back unresolved issues about the death of her daughter ten years previously.

The claimant’s thigh bone was broken in the accident, pushing downwards and damaging her knee. Her shin bone was also forced down breaking her ankle. Her body has since rejected the metalwork required to fix her injuries and part of it has forced its way through her skin.

Jon has arranged psychotherapy sessions to aid her recovery and has insisted that the insurance company fund a taxi account which has given her a degree of independence. However the full scale of the physical damage and its long term impact on her mobility is yet to be ascertained.

Jon took over another claim after three law firms rejected the case. It involved a 12-year-old client whose teeth were seriously damaged after falling from a height when forming a human pyramid during a “cheerleading” class.

The fitness session took place at her school and was led by a private company employed by the local council.

The other law firms rejected the case on the grounds that compensation was likely to be low and liability for the accident would be difficult to prove, especially as the three potential defendants denied they were to blame.

Jon ascertained that dental and cosmetic work would be required over a long period culminating in major surgery when she was fully grown.

Jon arranged psychological therapy for the girl after it became clear that she had body image problems which were made considerably worse by the damage to her teeth.

By talking to the young girl and her parents it became clear that the case would result in long term problems and would yield far higher damages than envisaged by other firms of solicitors.

In another case, Jon disputed the advice given by several other firms and barristers and pressed ahead with a case involving a student who was struck by a pool ball in the common room of her sixth form college.

She had been sitting on a sofa near the pool table when she was hit by the ball. It was generally accepted that it was an accident and was not caused maliciously.

Again it was initially difficult to establish who was liable for the neuropsychological injuries the student suffered and it was pointed out that the impact was not sufficient to knock her out, break her skull or cause lacerations.

However the incident resulted in the young woman being light sensitive, suffering migraines and an inability to concentrate. As a consequence she postponed her A levels for a year and withdrew from university applications she was contemplating.

Other firms of solicitors advised that litigation against schools rarely succeeded and a barrister also advised Jon against taking the case.

However Jon realised that the parents were deeply concerned about their daughter’s future. He was determined to achieve justice for them and their daughter and he investigated the details of the incident. It transpired that the pool tables were very close to the area where students sat and relaxed. He also found that the area had been designed by students and had not been properly assessed. It became clear that the pool tables and the chairs and sofas could be moved and therefore could be placed in unsafe positions.

Despite a robust defence by the defendants, Jon decided that the school’s culpability was inescapable and pressed ahead with the case and they duly entered negotiations on compensation ahead of a trial.


Law Society panel member.


A client who suffered injuries in a road traffic accident, said:

“Thank you for your call today and the heads up, I appreciate it and it’s so nice to know that in the short amount of time you have known me and had my case you know what will impact me in what way and you thought to call before I received the letter as I would’ve been a mess otherwise.”