OVU (Administratrix of the Estate of Ovu, Dec) v TfL  EWHC 2733 (QB)
Instructed by D in relation to a claim arising out of a death on a TfL station.Read more
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
Instructed by D in relation to a claim arising out of a death on a TfL station.Read more
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.
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.
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.
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.
Trial arising from a serious pedestrian v bus accident in which C ultimately lost her leg. Liability and quantum disputed.
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
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.
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.
Instructed by insurers in relation to the Inquest and subsequent fatal accident claims arising from the crash that claimed the lives of all on board a state of the art helicopter owned by Lord Ballyedmond, one of the UK’s wealthiest individuals.
Appearing at the numerous Inquests and civil claims relating to a catalogue of accidents that occurred in the aftermath of a major city centre re-development and new road lay-out.
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
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.
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.
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 email@example.com.
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 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:
Examples of legitimate interests include:
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:
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:
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 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:
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:
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.
You may request access to, correction of, or a copy of your information by contacting me in writing, please:
You may opt out of receiving emails and other messages from my Chambers by following the instructions in those messages.
Your data will never be sold, nor will it be passed to a third party, unless for legal or regulatory reasons.