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.


“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.”


Qualified Mediator

Cunningham (By his litigation friend) v Dickinson (QBD)

Representing D, who took an incredibly proactive and pragmatic approach to injuries arising from a tragic RTA.  D had admitted liability early; both parties had expert evidence in 9 specialist fields.  Instructed to value quantum and negotiate a settlement to facilitate Court Approval and early closure of the dispute for C.

Sinclair v Fastsource

Liability admitted claim.  Young mother sustained truly horrific, life-threatening facial and brain injuries as a result of a rock penetrating her car windscreen as she drove her young child.  The claim was for multi-millions and there was contested expert evidence in 9 specialist fields.

X (By his litigation friend, Y) v JHM Swansea CC 2018 - 2021

Long-running contested litigation.  C, a functioning alcoholic, sustained a severe TBI and orthopaedic injuries as a result of walking into the path of a taxi during the early hours of the morning.  Liability, quantum, causation, care and provisional damages were all vigorously contested.  Proceedings were subject to anonymity and confidentiality order.

Judd v Southend-on-Sea BC

C sustained life-threatening physical injuries and psychological sequelae as a result of a motorbike accident.  No other vehicles were involved; C alleged the accident was caused by reason of highway defects, specifically recently re-laid surface and manhole covers.  Diametrically opposed expert evidence, but trial turned on C’s accounts elicited under cross-examination.

Gonzalez-Ramirez v First Eastern Counties Buses Ltd [2017] EWHC 3842 (QB)

Hard fought litigation resulting from failed settlement meeting.  The alleged injury, namely TBI with cognitive and psychological sequelae, was denied by D.  Liability / Contributory negligence was contested before David Pittaway QC.

Read more

Green v Network Rail Infrastructure Nottingham CC

Liability admitted claim for ankle injury, which C contended had left him ‘disabled’.  Under cross-examination, C admitted that prior to the accident he was in the gym every day and, subsequent to the accident had been crowned British Powerlifting Champion.

Brown v Arriva North London Ltd.

C sustained serious lower limb injuries when she stepped off a pavement into a marked Bus Stop as a bus was pulling up.  Ultimately, C’s injuries lead to below knee transtibial amputation and significant psychological sequelae.   Liability Contested before HHJ Cotter QC, who apportioned fault.  Quantum settled at a subsequent JSM.

Plana v First Capital East Ltd [2015] EWHC 2982 (QB)

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.

Read more

Dursan v J Sainsbury PLC [2015] EWHC 233 (QB)

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.

Afouzar v First CentreWest Buses [2014] EWHC 3426 (QB)

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.

Gupta v (1) Armstrong & (2) Mainline Coaches [2014] EWHC 4439 (QB)

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.

Walter v First Centre West Buses Limited

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.

Armstrong v Hoylake Cottage Hospital (2014) – Liverpool County Court

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 [2014] EWCA Civ 42 CA (Civ Div); and [2012] 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.


Read more

Whiteford v Kubas [2012] EWCA Civ 1017

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.

Peter Freeman Joins Temple Garden Chambers

11th May 2016

We are delighted to announce that Peter Freeman has accepted an invitation to join Temple Garden Chambers.  Peter is a talented and high profile senior junior specialising in personal injury litigation.

Read more


I am registered with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) as a Data Controller for the personal data that I hold and process as a barrister. My registered address is Temple Garden Chambers, 1 Harcourt Buildings, Temple, London EC4Y 9DA.

In accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), I am committed to protecting the privacy of personal information.  I will take all possible steps to protect the personal information that I see as a result of instructions in cases, and I will endeavour to ensure that rights are not infringed.

This statement explains how I may collect and process information as a barrister.  If you have any queries about information that may have been collected and held by me, you can contact me by email at pf@tgchambers.com.

Data Collection

The information that I hold about you is provided to or gathered by your legal team in the course of your case. Your solicitor will tell you why we need the information and how we will use it.

The Lawful Bases for processing personal information under the GDPR

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requires all organisations that process personal data to have a “Lawful Basis” for doing so. The Lawful Bases identified in the GDPR are:

  • Consent of the data subject
  • Performance of a contract with the data subject or to take steps to enter into a contract
  • Compliance with a legal obligation
  • To protect the vital interests of a data subject or another person
  • Performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller.
  • The legitimate interests of ourselves, or a third party, except where such interests are overridden by the interests, rights or freedoms of the data subject.

Examples of legitimate interests include:

  • Where the data subject is a client or in the service of the controller;
  • Transmission within a group of undertakings for internal administrative purposes;
  • Processing necessary to ensure network and information security, including preventing unauthorised access;
  • Processing for direct marketing purposes, or to prevent fraud; and
  • Reporting possible criminal acts or threats to public security)

Some personal data is especially sensitive, so falls into special categories of personal data which require other lawful bases for processing. Medical records are in one special category of data. The special categories are data revealing:

  • Racial or ethnic origin;
  • Political opinions;
  • Religious or philosophical beliefs;
  • Trade Union membership;
  • Data concerning health or sex life and sexual orientation;
  • Genetic data or biometric data.

The main lawful basis for processing your information is that the it is necessary for the performance of a contract to which you (the “data subject”) are party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract.  The “contract” here is the contract for the provision of legal services to you, the data subject.  A further lawful basis for processing your information, and that of any third party, is for the legitimate interests of my practice as a barrister. Among those legitimate interests, for example, are:

  • The administration of my business (eg. my clerks receiving information from your solicitor in relation to the case and making sure that all the information I need, eg. about hearings, is passed on to me);
  • To keep records in relation to the services I provide (just in case, for example, there is a problem with those services and I need to provide information to you, to a professional body or to my professional indemnity insurer);
  • To provide training. Trainees (pupil barristers and “mini-pupils” on short placements in chambers) are made aware of the strict duties of confidentiality applicable to legal work. I will always do my utmost to ensure the confidentiality of your personal information and will share with the trainee only the minimum amount of information necessary to provide such training (and will, if I can, avoid sharing any personal information at all with the trainee). But please do tell me (by email or in writing by post) if you would prefer that your case not be used by me for training purposes and I will not use it in that way.

My lawful basis for processing any third party’s information provided to me in relation to your case is that processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which I as controller am subject, namely the obligation to provide legal services under the contract with you.  (A “third party” is another person – whether the other party in the dispute or someone else whose information is relevant, such as a witness to the event in question).

My lawful basis for processing any special categories of personal data (yours or a third party’s sensitive personal data, eg. medical records) is that the processing is necessary for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims.

I use personal information carefully:

  • To provide you with legal advice and representation;
  • To manage efficiently the work I do for you;
  • To investigate and address any concerns you might have; and
  • To train future barristers.

I do not use automated decision-making in the processing of your personal data.

I collect and process both personal data and special categories of personal data as defined in the GDPR. This includes, for example:

  • Name;
  • Email;
  • Phone number;
  • ddress;
  • Payment or bank details;
  • Date of birth;
  • Location details;
  • Device IP address;
  • Financial information;
  • Medical Records;
  • Employment Records.

I may share your personal data with:

  • Instructing solicitors
  • Opposing Counsel, for the purposes of resolving the case
  • Chambers management and staff who provide administrative services
  • Pupil or mini-pupil, under my training
  •  My regulator or legal advisors in the event of a dispute or other legal matter
  • Law enforcement officials, government authorities, or other third parties, if necessary to meet our legal obligations
  • Any other party where I ask you and you consent to the sharing.

I do not transfer any personal data to third countries or international organisations.

I retain your personal data while you remain a client unless you ask me to delete it. I retain data for so long as necessary.  I will delete or anonymise your information at your request unless:

  • There is an unresolved issue, such as claim or dispute;
  • I am legally required not to do so; or
  • There are overriding legitimate business interests, including but not limited to my obligations to keep records in case of future complaint or claim against me, fraud prevention and protecting customers’ safety and security.

The General Data Protection Regulation gives you specific rights around your personal data. For example, you have to be informed about the information I hold and what I use it for, you can ask for a copy of the personal information I hold about you, you can ask me to correct any inaccuracies with the personal data I hold, you can ask me to stop sending you direct mail, or emails, or in some circumstances ask me to stop processing your details. Finally, if I do something irregular or improper with your personal data you can seek compensation for any distress you are caused or loss you have incurred. You can find out more information from the ICO’s website:

http://ico.org.uk/for_the_public/personal_information and this is the organisation that you can complain to if you are unhappy with how I dealt with you.

Accessing and Correcting Your Information

You may request access to, correction of, or a copy of your information by contacting me in writing, please:

  • By email at pf@tgchambers.com or
  • By post, at Temple Garden Chambers, 1 Harcourt Buildings, Temple, London EC4Y 9DA

You may opt out of receiving emails and other messages from my Chambers by following the instructions in those messages.

Cookies are small text files that are stored on your browser or device by websites, apps, online media, and advertisements. The Chambers website use cookies to (for example):

  • See how often you access our website; and to
  • Remember your user preferences and settings.

Your data will never be sold, nor will it be passed to a third party, unless for legal or regulatory reasons.