Adam Temple

Adam is ranked in both Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners for his financial services work, where he is recognised for his ability to navigate financial services regulation. He was Legal 500’s Financial Services and Insurance Junior of the Year 2023.

Adam’s financial services practice includes a large number of contentious regulatory matters, including the regulatory perimeter (in particular involving collective investment schemes), enforcement actions, and the proper construction of regulatory rules. He also provides non-contentious advice both to regulators and private parties.

Adam is regularly instructed by the FCA, including the following reported cases for the regulator:

• FSA v Sinaloa [2013] UKSC 11; [2013] 2 AC 28, in which the FSA successfully argued that it should not be required to provide cross-undertakings to third parties when obtaining injunctions as part of its law enforcement activities.
• FCA v Capital Alternatives [2014] EWHC 144 (Ch), [2015] EWCA Civ 284 and (2018, unreported), in relation to collective investment schemes (under 235 of FSMA). It obtained significant restitution orders against those knowingly concerned in the schemes.
• McKendrick v FCA [2019] EWCA Civ 524, in relation to the sentence imposed on a party in breach of worldwide freezing orders.
• FCA v Avacade [2019] EWHC 1961 (Ch); [2020] EWHC 26 (Ch); [2020] EWHC 1673 (Ch); [2020] EWHC 2175 (Ch); [2021] EWCA Civ 1206, arising out of the provision to consumers of pension reports, by unauthorised entities.
• FCA v Golding [2021] EWHC 372 (Ch), again relating to collective investment Adam appeared as sole counsel for the FCA, obtaining distribution orders for sums to paid out to investors.
• Gidiplus v FCA [2022] UKUT 43 (TCC), Vladimir Consulting v FCA [2022] UKUT 168 (TCC); and Moneybrain v FCA [2022] UKUT 257 (TCC) and [2022] UKUT 308 (TCC), a trio of cryptocurrency cases involving suspension applications to the Upper Tribunal.
• FCA v Forster [2023] EWHC 1973 (Ch), a case involving £56 million of investments into care home rooms, where the Judge concluded was a collective investment scheme and that the defendant was knowingly concerned in contraventions of FSMA.
• Fox-Bryant v FCA [2023] UKUT 224 (TCC); [2024] UKUT 357 (TCC); [2025] UKUT 87 (TCC), in which the FCA has taken action against pension advisors in relation to transfers out of defined benefit.
• Nvayo v FCA [2024] UKUT 35 (TCC), in which an electronic money institution challenged an FCA supervisory notice preventing it from providing services.
• Burdett v FCA [2024] UKUT 156 (TCC), in which the FCA has taken action against individuals involved in a financial adviser and a discretionary fund manager in relation to allegedly inappropriate investments.

In the Dubai International Financial Centre, Adam has regularly appeared before the Financial Services Markets Tribunal, both for and against the Dubai Financial Services Authority:

• Al Masah Capital v DFSA (2020, FMT 19007), where Adam represented the DFSA against two firms and three individuals in relation to misleading investors in collective investment funds.
• Bhandari v DFSA (2020, FMT 2013), where Adam represented Mr Bhandari including on an application to suspend publication of the Decision Notice issued by the DFSA.
• KPMG v DFSA (2021, FMT 21016 and 21017 and [2022] DIFC CFI 008 CFI 007), where Adam represented KPMG LLP in both FMT and an appeal before the DIFC Court of First Instance.
• Dalma Capital Management v DFSA (2022, FMT 21019 and FMT 21020), where Adam represented the DFSA against a firm and individual who were found to have misled the regulator.

Adam has also appeared for regulators and subjects of investigation before regulators’ internal decision-making committees including: the FCA (the Regulatory Decisions Committee); the Dubai Financial Services Authority (the Decision Making Committee); and the Guernsey Financial Services Commission (the Senior Decision Maker).

Adam is consultant editor for the Financial Services Volume of Halsbury’s Laws of England (fifth edition, 2022), including updates to reflect the Brexit statutory instruments.

Adam also regularly advises both sides of FOS claims, including judicial reviews of the FOS (R (Mazarona Properties Ltd) v Financial Ombudsman Service [2017] EWHC 1135 (Admin); and R (Critchley) v Financial Ombudsman Service [2019] EWHC 3036 (Admin)), and has co-authored a book: A Practical Guide to Financial Ombudsman Service Claims (2025).

Adam is ranked in Legal 500 as a leading junior for Banking and Finance. He is regularly instructed on banking litigation claims. His experience includes:

• Claims against banks for losses caused by third party fraudsters, in particular arising out of push payment frauds.
• Claims against banks for allegedly acting in breach of mandate.
• Claims against banks for allegedly being involved in a ‘joint enterprise’ with alleged fraudsters.
• Claims between banks in relation to the cheque clearing rules.
• Claims for rectification where a bank’s documentation contained errors.
• Claims by banks arising out of fraudulent conveyancing transactions.
• A claim by an Indian bank for repayment of a loan, and enforcement of a guarantee.
• An injunction issued against an alleged fraudster and a bank, where Adam appeared for the bank.
• An injunction against a large investment bank to prevent the close out of call and put options, where Adam appeared for the Claimant.
• A judicial review against the Financial Ombudsman Service, with Adam representing a bank as an interested party.
• A judicial review against the Financial Ombudsman Service, in relation to the FOS’s approach to PPI mis-selling claims.
• A claim against an electronic money firm for allegedly failing to make a payment as instructed.

Reported cases include:

• R (Mazarona Properties Ltd) v Financial Ombudsman Service [2017] EWHC 1135 (Admin). Adam represented the bank in judicial review proceedings, supporting the Financial Ombudsman Service’s rejection of a complaint.
• Bawany v RBS International [2018] EWHC 2248 (Ch). Representing the Defendant bank, Adam appeared on the successful strike-out application of a claim arising out of an alleged trust.
• Deane v Coutts [2018] EWHC 1657 (Ch). Adam represented the Defendant banks on the successful strike-out application on a claim brought by four ex-professional footballers, arising out of failed investments funded by loans from the banks.
• R (Critchley) v Financial Ombudsman Service [2019] EWHC 3036 (Admin). Adam represented the Claimant, in a judicial review of the manner in which the Financial Ombudsman Service had rejected her complaint.
• IFT SAL v Barclays Bank [2020] EWHC 3125 (Comm). Adam represented the Defendant, in relation to the use of confidential documents, which had been obtained under Norwich Pharmacal orders, for a collateral purpose.
• Frasers Group v Saxo Bank [2024] EWHC 188 (Comm). Adam represented the Claimant in a claim against an investment bank for economic torts arising out of a c. USD 1bn margin call.
• Hussey v Barclays Bank [2024] EWHC 2133 (Comm). Adam represented the Defendant, successfully resisting an application for the lifting of an undertaking on the collateral use of disclosed documents.
• IDBI Bank v Axcel Sunshine [2025] EWHC 442 (Comm). Adam represented the Claimant Indian bank, obtaining judgment of USD 143.7 million against a guarantor.
• Agrofirma Oniks v ABH Ukraine [2025] EWHC 2292 (Comm). Adam represented the defendant bond issuer in Part 11 proceedings, successfully obtaining an order setting aside the claim form.

Adam is often instructed for and against insurers on coverage disputes, including significant claims in arbitration on professional indemnity policies. He is Legal 500’s Financial Services and Insurance Junior of the Year 2023.

His recent and current work includes:

• Representing insurers in an arbitration brought by a firm of IFAs, where insurers had avoided the policy on the basis of material non-disclosure.
• Representing insurers on a coverage dispute in an arbitration brought by a firm of settlement agents.
• Representing insurers in an arbitration brought under the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010, where insurers avoided the policy on the basis of misrepresentation.
• Representing insurers in litigation on a credit insurance policy, avoided by insurers on the basis of a breach of the duty of fair presentation.
• Representing insurers in a claim by a jeweler (Maman v Certain Lloyd’s Underwriters [2016] EWHC 1327 (QB)).

Prior to joining the bar, Adam was a research assistant in the commercial and common law team at the Law Commission during its work on the reform of insurance contract law.

Adam regularly advises and appears in relation to a wide range of commercial disputes, in litigation in England and the Dubai International Financial Centre and in arbitration, including freezing and other injunctions.

This experience includes:

• International sale of goods claims.
• A multi-jurisdictional Commercial Court dispute involving alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and fraudulent misrepresentations.
• Claims for and against spread betting companies, including allegations of market abuse to avoid payment.
• Claims for breach of warranty in share purchase agreements.
• A claim for unjust enrichment and lawful means conspiracy arising out of a renewed consultancy agreement.
• Acting for the claimant against an investment bank for economic torts arising out of a c. USD 1bn margin call: Frasers Group plc v Saxo Bank AS & Anor [2024] EWHC 188 (Comm).
• Representing the defendant in striking out a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation arising out of cum-ex trading: SKAT v MCML [2025] EWCA Civ 371.
• Civil fraud claims on behalf of cryptoasset exchanges against customers.

Adam is often instructed for and against insurers on coverage disputes, including significant claims in arbitration on professional indemnity policies. He was Legal 500’s Financial Services and Insurance Junior of the Year 2023.

His recent and current work includes:

• Representing insurers in an arbitration brought by a firm of IFAs, where insurers had avoided the policy on the basis of material non-disclosure.
• Representing insurers on a coverage dispute in an arbitration brought by a firm of settlement agents.
• Representing insurers in an arbitration brought under the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010, where insurers avoided the policy on the basis of misrepresentation.
• Representing insurers in litigation on a credit insurance policy, avoided by insurers on the basis of a breach of the duty of fair presentation.
• Representing insurers in a claim by a jeweler (Maman v Certain Lloyd’s Underwriters [2016] EWHC 1327 (QB)).

Prior to joining the bar, Adam was a research assistant in the commercial and common law team at the Law Commission during its work on the reform of insurance contract law.

Adam is ranked as a leading junior for professional negligence work in the Legal 500. He is regularly involved in litigation against IFAs (including networks of IFAs), tax advisors and similar, including:

• Claims against an IFA who provided ‘due diligence’ on a tax avoidance scheme involving film finance partnerships.
• Claims against IFAs who allegedly promoted an investment scheme to investors, where the investments turned out to be a Ponzi scheme.
• Numerous claims against IFAs, including a successful strike-out of the claim in Booker v RT Financial Services [2016] EWHC 3186 (Ch).
• Numerous claims against mortgage brokers for allegedly negligent advice, including successfully representing a mortgage broker in a 5 day trial (unreported).
• Group actions related to property investment schemes.

Adam also represents solicitors in professional negligence claims, including cases arising out of wills and conveyancing. He successfully represented a solicitor client in proceedings in the Chancery Division, against whom a third party costs order had been sought (affirmed on appeal: Jobanputra v Modi [2014] EWCA Civ 1046).

He is also regularly instructed on claims against all manner of other professionals.

Adam is also a contributor to Professional Negligence and Liability (Informa, looseleaf).

Adam has been involved in the developing caselaw on cryptoassets, both from a regulatory angle and in relation to fraud claims/injunctions against an exchange. He is ranked as a tier 1 junior barrister in Legal 500 for Crypto and Blockchain assets.

In particular, Adam represented the Financial Conduct Authority in the first three cases to reach the Upper Tribunal in relation to rejected applications under the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 (“the MLRs”): Gidiplus v FCA [2022] UKUT 43 (TCC), Vladimir Consulting v FCA [2022] UKUT 168 (TCC); and Moneybrain v FCA [2022] UKUT 257 (TCC) and [2022] UKUT 308 (TCC).

He has separately advised the FCA on enforcement aspects of the MLRs, and also takes instructions from applicants to the FCA for registration under the MLRs.

Adam has also represented cryptoasset exchanges in response to interim injunction applications, including a proprietary freezing injunction sought by a defrauded claimant. He has been instructed by exchanges on recovery actions against customers suspected of defrauding the exchanges.

Adam continues to take an active role in the development of the regulation of cryptoassets, contributing to the Commercial Bar Association and Financial Services Law Association responses to consultations, and giving evidence to the House of Lords Bill Committee on digital assets. As a result of his evidence, the bill was amended.

Adam acts for both applicants and respondents on injunctions. His experience includes:

• Worldwide freezing orders, arising out of frauds and breaches of the FCA’s regulatory perimeter.
• McKendrick v FCA [2019] EWCA Civ 524, in which Adam represented the FCA on both the committal action at first instance, and on the appeal against sentence.
• Numerous prohibitory injunctions, following FCA actions against unauthorized individuals for breach of the general prohibition.
• Return dates for recipients of freezing and other injunctions, including for a cryptoasset exchange based overseas.
• Opposing an anti-suit injunction.
• Opposing a mandatory injunction to allow a customer to access their cryptoasset exchange account.

Adam is recognised by Legal 500 as a leading junior in the Middle East.

He is a registered practitioner of the DIFC, where he has appeared before the DIFC Courts in:

• KPMG v DFSA [2022] DIFC CFI 008 CFI 007, where Adam represented KPMG LLP in an appeal against an order of the DIFC Financial Markets Tribunal before the DIFC Court of First Instance.
• TransAsia v Mados (CFI 079/2021), where Adam successfully represented the lenders in an immediate judgment application against borrowers and guarantors in a claim for over USD 18 million.
• Private arbitration applications, resisting an anti-suit injunction and an application for pre-action disclosure.
• Obtaining recognition of cross-border insolvency proceedings.

In addition, Adam regularly appears before the DIFC Financial Services Markets Tribunal:

• Al Masah Capital v DFSA (2020, FMT 19007), where Adam represented the DFSA against two firms and three individuals in relation to misleading investors in collective investment funds.
• Bhandari v DFSA (2020, FMT 2013), where Adam represented Mr Bhandari including on an application to suspend publication of the Decision Notice issued by the DFSA.
• KPMG v DFSA (FMT 21016 and 21017), where Adam represented KPMG LLP.
• Dalma Capital Management v DFSA (2022, FMT 21019 and FMT 21020), where Adam represented the DFSA against a firm and individual who were found to have misled the regulator.

Adam has also written a chapter on the Collective Investment Law, DIFC Law No 2/2010 in the Laws of the DIFC Volume 5 (DIFC Academy/Lexis Nexis), as a result of which Adam has been recognised as a DIFC Academy Specialist.

Adam has also been instructed on cases in the Abu Dhabi General Market (the ADGM) and in Guernsey, where he appeared at a meeting before a Senior Decision Maker in the Guernsey Financial Services Commission (GFSC) and assisting a local advocate before the Royal Court and the Guernsey Court of Appeal.