Adam Temple

Adam Temple

Call: 2008

"An excellent barrister. He has a broad regulatory practice, and he is very user-friendly and technically excellent."

- Chambers & Partners UK Bar (2022)

"He is very smart, sharp and completely on top of the detail."

- Chambers & Partners UK Bar (2022)

"A quick thinking and no-nonsense barrister who does not stand on ceremony and so is clear, straight forward and easy to deal with."

- Legal 500 UK Bar (2022)

"Adam is immensely bright, responsive, and a persuasive advocate. He has an excellent grasp of FCA regulations. A junior with great judgement."

- Legal 500 UK Bar (2022)

"Adam is thoughtful, intelligent and robust, as well as being practical and commercial. He is great to work with."

- Legal 500 UK Bar (2022)

Practice Overview

Adam is recommended as a leading junior in both Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners. He is currently described as ‘immensely bright, responsive, and a persuasive advocate’  in Legal 500,  whilst Chambers and Partners says ‘He is very smart, sharp and completely on top of the detail’.

Previous recommendations have included:

Extremely bright, thorough and hard working, he is able to process difficult concepts with ease…’ and ‘He is bright, personable and a pleasure to work with’ (Legal 500, 2021)

He is extremely bright, incredibly hard-working and very user-friendly’ and ‘tenacious and willing to run difficult arguments’ (Chambers and Partners, 2021)

A brilliant junior, extremely intelligent, fearsomely hardworking and insightful’ (Legal 500, 2020)

He is extremely competent, delivers exactly what you need within the deadline and very much has the client’s needs in mind, however onerous they may be' (Chambers and Partners, 2020)

A brilliant junior, extremely intelligent, fearsomely hardworking and insightful’ (Legal 500, 2020)

Very intelligent’ and ‘Sharp, commercial and technically astute’ (Chambers and Partners, 2019)

Rapidly becoming a go-to barrister’ (Legal 500, 2019)

A fantastic brain’ and ‘A very skilled advocate’ (Chambers and Partners, 2018)

He has particular expertise in financial services matters and all manner of banking and connected claims. He also has a broad commercial practice, covering a wide range of business disputes in professional negligence and insurance law, in both litigation and arbitration.

Adam is ranked in Legal 500 as a leading junior for Banking and Finance, with the comment that he is ‘A quick thinking and no-nonsense barrister who does not stand on ceremony and so is clear, straight forward and easy to deal with.’

Adam is regularly instructed on banking litigation claims. His experience includes:

  • Claims against banks for losses caused by third party fraudsters.
  • 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.
  • 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.

Reported cases include:

  • 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 (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.
  • 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 for a collateral purpose.

Adam regularly advises and appears in relation to a wide range of commercial disputes, in both arbitration and litigation.

This experience includes:

  • International sale of goods claims: Ronly Holdings v Gungor Tarim Insaat (2013, unreported), in which Adam acted for the successful vendor of 300 tonnes of apricots.
  • A multi-jurisdictional Commercial Court dispute involving alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and fraudulent misrepresentations.
  • Freezing orders and associated applications, including committal for contempt of court: FCA v McKendrick [2019] EWHC 607 (Ch); [2019] EWCA Civ 524.
  • Claims for breach of warranty in share purchase agreements.

Adam has experience in construction matters before the TCC, in arbitration, and in adjudication.

His construction experience includes:

  • Acting as junior counsel on large, complex disputes in the TCC, including the Wembley Stadium litigation (Multiplex v Mott MacDonald) and the steelwork for the Shard in London (Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd v Severfield – Rowen Structures Ltd [2012] EWHC 3652 (TCC)).
  • Numerous other TCC claims including: fire claims; tree root claims; delay claims; defect claims; and defective products (ADVA v Optron [2018] EWHC 852 (TCC))
  • ICC arbitrations and ad hoc arbitrations involving infrastructure projects including: a school building in the UK; a Middle Eastern metro system; a university campus; and power stations around the world.
  • Adjudications involving London commercial property and residential conversions.
  • Adjudication enforcement, including Beck Interiors Ltd v UK Flooring Contractors Ltd [2012] EWHC 1808 (TCC); [2012] B.L.R. 417, where he successfully argued that a dispute had not crystallised.

Adam is ranked in both Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners for his financial services work, where he is described as ‘a junior with great judgment’ and ‘an increasingly prominent junior in the financial services sector’.

This reflects the fact that Adam’s practice includes regular instructions from 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 which the FCA demonstrated that various investments were collective investment schemes for the purposes of s.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 26 (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 schemes. Adam appeared as sole counsel for the FCA, obtaining distribution orders for sums to paid out to investors.

Adam has also appeared for regulators and subjects of investigation before the Regulatory Decisions Committee of the FCA; the Upper Tribunal; the Decision Making Committee of the Dubai Financial Services Committee; and the Financial Markets Tribunal of the Dubai International Financial Centre (Al Masah Capital v Dubai Financial Services Authority (2020, FMT 19007); Bhandari v Dubai Financial Services Authority (2020, FMT 2013)).

Adam also advises private clients in relation to a broad range of FSMA and related issues, including matters in the Upper Tribunal and the Qatar Financial Centre.

He 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); R (Critchley) v Financial Ombudsman Service [2019] EWHC 3036 (Admin)) and has co-authored a book: A Practical Guide to Financial Ombudsman Service Claims (2018).

Adam is often instructed for and against insurers on coverage disputes, including significant claims in arbitration on professional indemnity policies. 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 jeweller (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. He is described in Legal 500 as ‘bright, personable and a pleasure to work with.’

In relation to finance professionals, Adam 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 an IFA who allegedly promoted an investment scheme to investors, where that investment scheme turned out to be a Ponzi scheme.
  • Numerous claims against IFAs, including the 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 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).

  • Qualified to undertake public access work.

The Lawyer Awards 2022: Chambers of the Year