Peter has specialised in PI litigation for over 20 years and, so far as possible, sought to maintain an equal balance between representing claimants and defendants. He is renowned for his expertise in evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of both sides’ cases and accurately evaluating the likely outcome of trial from an early stage.
Peter undertakes virtually all types of personal injury work, with particular emphasis on high value claims, complex causation and apportionment for contributory negligence.
Peter has considerable recent courtroom experience of accidents involving motorcycles, buses and LGVs. He also has a niche practice in accidents concerning air travel, recently appearing in the Inquest arising from the helicopter crash that killed Lord Ballyedmond and three others.
Peter never loses sight of the fact that at the heart of these cases are real people whose lives have been shattered.
“As father and litigation friend to my injured son, I had total confidence in Peter Freeman as a barrister who is extremely professional, skilled and thorough, and someone who could be completely trusted. Beyond that, Peter is one of the kindest, caring and most approachable lawyers that anyone could hope to work with. Throughout the time he worked on the case, we felt that he always had our injured son and justice at heart.” [David Rogers, Litigation Friend in severe brain injury case]
“An outstanding catastrophic injury junior who represents both claimants and defendants, and regularly goes head to head with QCs”.
“Always thoroughly prepared … puts clients and witnesses at ease and is a fantastic courtroom lawyer who combines legal knowledge and ability with presence and gravitas.”
“…extremely commercial and knows which buttons to press with defendant insurers.”
“noted for his skill in handling difficult liability and causation matters, and is further celebrated for his knowledge of sporting injuries.”
Chambers UK 2015 Personal Injury
“Highly experienced in a range of complex personal injury matters, including catastrophic and psychiatric injury claims”.
“… especially recommended for … handling of liability”.
“… acts for claimants and defendants, and singled out for praise by peers and solicitors”.
Chambers UK 2014 Personal Injury
“…greatest strength is his ability to adapt to the personalities around him and gain favourable results even against the most belligerent of opposition”.
“…no signs of weakness in court”.
Chambers UK 2013 Personal Injury
“charming, easy-going and unflappable.”
Chambers UK 2012 Personal Injury
“… blessed with an ability to cross-examine which is almost second to none. Gains credit for the fact that he is particularly good at sympathising with clients and dealing with people without a hint of condescension”.
Chambers UK 2011 Personal Injury
Undertakes Public Access work
Initially instructed to represent D at a JSM in a liability admitted claim in which £125,000 interim payments had been made. Advised to withdraw from the JSM, apply to withdraw the admission and strike out the claim.
Representing D in a fatal road traffic accident. The driver of an LGV was in stop-start traffic in a busy area and aware of pedestrians crossing from both sides in between vehicles. The Deceased left the footpath and walked in front of the LGV. D’s driver looked in his mirrors, but did not see the Deceased. C submitted that the driver should have made a final check in his Class VI mirror before moving forward and, had he done so, he would have seen C. D’s driver did not make that extra check but moved forward whereupon the deceased lost his life.
Claim dismissed. Judgment for D.
Representing D, whose bus passed through an amber light at a traffic light controlled pedestrian crossing and struck C, causing a severe brain injury.
Claim dismissed; Judgment for D.
C was trying to board a coach he believed had stopped to allow him on, when he was knocked over and the front wheel ran over his legs causing severe injuries.
C’s representatives view of their prospects was reflected in a Part 36 offer of 80 / 20 in C’s favour.
Claim dismissed with judgment for D.
Representing D in protracted litigation. The accident occurred in 2008. In 2009, D made an interim payment of £10,000 followed by a further £5,000. Proceedings were issued in 2011. D made attempts at Part 36 offers in December 2011, but by 2012/13, C was claiming £400,000 and D felt unable to make any further Part 36 offer for fear of becoming liable for C’s costs to that date.
C was born with a congenital deformity of the right hand such that the index, ring and middle fingers of the right hand were absent. Throughout her life, C had understandably been left hand dominant. As a result of an accident on 31.05.09, C slipped and fell onto her left hand, sustaining a wrist fracture with some displacement, scapholunate ligament disruption, an aggravation of arthritis in the CMC joint of the thumb. C also alleged some CRPS and psychological sequelae.
Rehill v Rider Holdings Ltd  EWCA Civ 42 CA (Civ Div); and  EWCA Civ 628 (Civ Div).
Taking over the brief to represent D at trial. C was hit by a bus and, by the time it stopped, its front wheel had gone over him, causing serious crush injuries. D’s bus driver pleaded guilty to careless driving and D had admitted liability for an incident in which C had been struck and run over by their bus.
A motorcyclist sustained a traumatic leg amputation as a result of a collision with an LGV.
Representing D at trial and with J Watt-Pringle QC on appeal.
At first instance, the Recorder apportioned liability 50 / 50.
On appeal, it was held that the Recorder had erred in imposing an unacceptably high standard of care on a lorry driver. Primary liability was not established.
Claim dismissed; Judgment for D.