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 and ‘provide clear and correct advice on issues on which many barrister would struggle to advise’.

Adam’s financial services practice includes a large number of contentious regulatory matters, including issues around the regulatory perimeter (in particular involving collective investment schemes), enforcement actions, and the proper the construction of regulatory rules. He also provides non-contentious advice around these and similar matters 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 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.
• 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 (the first three such cases to have been determined).

In the Dubai International Financial Centre, Adam regularly appears 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, FMT21016 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, FMT21019 and FMT21020), ongoing, where Adam represents the DFSA.

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); 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 ranked in Legal 500 as a leading junior for Banking and Finance, with the comment that ‘Adam is an excellent junior barrister. He is bright, clear in his thinking, good on paper and equally strong on his feet.’

Adam 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.

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.

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

This experience includes:

• International sale of goods claims: for example, 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 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.
• All manners of disputes relating to the construction of commercial contracts.

Adam is ranked as a leading junior for professional negligence work in the Legal 500.

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 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).

Qualified to undertake public access work.