Temple Garden Chambers is a leading common law set based in London and The Hague.
With excellence from top to bottom Chambers provides a first class service in a number of different fields.
Health & Safety Junior of the Year award at the Chambers Bar Awards 2018.
Thank you for choosing to instruct me in your case. I will need to collect and hold your personal information in order to represent you. I will take all reasonable steps to protect your personal information. I will do all that I reasonably can to ensure I do not infringe your rights or undermine your trust. This Privacy Notice describes the information I collect about you, how it is used and shared, and your rights regarding it.
Data Controller
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 and my registration number is Z2249526.
Data Collection
All of the information that I hold about you is provided to me or gathered solely in the course of and for the purposes of your case, proceedings or any related matter.
Lawful Basis For Processing Your Information
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
My Lawful Basis is Legitimate Interest namely the provision of professional services to you and the proper exercise of my professional obligations and responsibilities. My Lawful Bases may also include: consent and/or performance of a contract with you or steps to enter a contract with you and/or compliance with a legal obligation. In so far as I process sensitive personal data that is necessary in relation to legal proceedings and/or obtaining legal advice and/or otherwise for establishing, exercising or defending legal rights and/or for administering justice.
I Use Your Information To
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:
I May Share Your Personal Data With:
Transfers To Third Countries & International Organisations
I do not transfer any personal data to third countries or international organisations.
Retention
I retain your personal data while you remain a client and for as long as in necessary for me to meet my legal and professional obligations. My Retention and Disposal Policy (copy available on request) details how long I hold data for and how I dispose of it when it no longer needs to be held.
Your Rights
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 and this is the organisation that you can complain to if you are unhappy with how I dealt with you.
Accessing & Correcting Your Information
You may request access to, correction of, or a copy of your information by contacting me in writing at my registered address.
Marketing Opt-Outs
You may opt out of receiving emails and other messages from my Chambers by following the instructions in those messages.
Cookies
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:
I May Update My Privacy Notice
When I make significant changes, I will publish the updated notice on my website profile.
Updated: 01/11/2022
Dominic Adamson KC
Dominic has been in practice at Temple Garden Chambers since 1997, developing a broad regulatory health and safety, criminal, and civil practice. He specialises in health and safety, inquests, personal injury, product liability, and related insurance matters. He was appointed silk in 2020.
Dominic has been instructed in some of the most high-profile regulatory criminal cases, public inquiries, and inquests. He appeared in the landmark health and safety cases R v Tata Steel UK Limited and R v Whirlpool UK Appliances Limited. He represented the victims of the Westminster and London Bridge terrorist attacks and acted for a core participant in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry. He regularly acts for claimants and defendants in catastrophic injury cases.
Dominic has been appointed to the Football Association’s Judicial Panel.
Dominic is a Leading Silk in health and safety law, extensively recognised for his expertise and high-profile advocacy in both corporate and individual defence.
A specialist in technically complex and multi-sector incidents, Dominic is sought after by the country’s largest companies across healthcare, construction, agriculture, utilities, food manufacturing, education, transport, and more. Dominic regularly appears in the Court of Appeal and Crown Court representing duty-holders in prosecutions under the HSWA 1974 following both fatal and non-fatal accidents. He has appeared in some of the most high profile cases in recent years.
Dominic has an extensive background in cases relating to the national and private railway network. He was first involved in railway cases when he acted as counsel to the various inquiries which took place as a result of the fatal train crashes at Southall and Ladbroke Grove. Since then, he has acted for duty holders in prosecutions/investigations arising out of railway operations on the national rail networks and private rail networks.
He was successful in each of the leading Court of Appeal cases R v Whirlpool UK Appliances Limited and R v Tata Steel UK Limited.
Dominic also represents duty-holders in other regulatory matters under the HSWA 1974 (e.g. appeals against prohibition and improvement notices).
Shortly before being appointed Silk in 2020, Dominic received the Health & Safety Junior of the Year award at the Chambers Bar Awards in 2018.
CFRS v Avantage Limited and Others [2025]
Prosecution arising out of a fire in an independent living accommodation in Crewe relating to alleged breaches of the Regulatory Reform Fire Safety Order. CFRS prosecuted Avantage and 5 other organisations. Dominic acted for D1 and D2 leading Harriet Gilchrist. Dominic was successful in dismissing a number of the counts against his two clients and resisting an application to add counts to the trial indictment. At trial, following argument on the admissibility of quasi-expert evidence the prosecution offered no evidence. Dominic’s two clients were acquitted.
R v Architectural Practice & Others (2025)
Representing the architectural firm in an ongoing prosecution following a fatal accident at a high-rise development, where a window fell from height. The case focuses on the adequacy of risk assessment, awareness of potential hazards, and adherence to procedural standards. The client has entered a not guilty plea, with trial listed for 8 weeks in the summer of 2026.
R v Leisure Facility Operators (2024)
Represented two operators in a prosecution following a serious injury sustained by a minor at a leisure venue they jointly ran. The defence successfully argued that all reasonably practicable safety measures had been implemented, and that the injury arose from staff failures outside of the defendants’ control. Both defendants were acquitted.
HSE v Utility Contractor & Co-defendant (2024)
Represented a specialist contractor prosecuted by the Health & Safety Executive following a serious electrocution incident during pylon maintenance. The core issues involved failures in maintaining safe working distances and inadequate risk mitigation procedures. The contractor (turnover ~£80 million) pleaded guilty to a breach of section 2 of the HSWA 1974, resulting in a fine of £80,000. The co-defendant—an infrastructure operator—was also convicted and received a substantially larger fine of £3.2 million.
ONR v Nuclear Contractor & Sub-contractor (2024)
Represented the sub-contractor in a prosecution brought by the Office for Nuclear Regulation following a severe workplace injury at a nuclear power station. The case centred on failings in risk assessment, awareness of unexpected machinery movement, and compliance with procedures, after a contractor suffered a life-changing foot injury. The sub-contractor (turnover approx. £50 million) was fined £100,000.
HSE & EA prosecution – chemical containment failures
Defended a major chemical manufacturer in relation to two significant losses of containment involving large volumes of hydrochloric and sulphuric acid, which caused community disruption and raised issues of maintenance, bund design, and emergency planning. The case concluded with a multi-million-pound fine
R v X & Onr
Dominic secured acquittals of two organisations, a parent and a subsidiary, charged with breaches of s.3 of the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (the duty to ensure safety of non-employees). The subsidiary was also charged with a breach of s. 2 of the Act (the duty in respect of employees).
The parent was contracted to operate and manage leisure centres on behalf of a local authority. It delivered that service through its subsidiaries. An incident which resulted in injury to a member of the public occurred at one of the centres.
The case hinged on whether the parent and relevant subsidiary could establish that they had taken all reasonably practicable steps to ensure the safety of non-employees and, with respect to the subsidiary, employees. It was not in dispute that local management, employed by the subsidiary, had not complied with group safety and waste management policy. The parent and subsidiary argued that:
the group safety and waste management policy and procedure were appropriate and adequate;
they arranged for and provided suitable and sufficient training to the experienced local management who had been transferred into the subsidiary’s employment when the parent entered the contract just over a year before the incident; and
they implemented an adequate system of regional management supervision and oversight which covered the location. Regional management were not aware of the non-compliance with group policy.
Accordingly the parent and subsidiary contended that they had done all that was reasonably practicable to ensure safety. Reliance was placed on the reasoning in R v Nelson Group Services Limited [1999] 1 WLR 1526 and related authorities. The parent and subsidiary were found not guilty of all charges.
R v Modus Workspace Limited 2021 [2021] EWCA Crim 1728
Dominic appeared in the Court of Appeal on an appeal against sentence which considered the issue of reduced turnover due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the relevance of turnover projections in setting the penalty.
R v NMC Surfacing Limited & Others [2021] Southwark Crown Court
Dominic secured the acquittal of a roofing company (X) following a two week trial at Southwark Crown Court (sitting in the Nightingale Court at Prospero House). The jury reached their decision unanimously. The Health & Safety Executive alleged that the roofing company X failed to ensure the health, safety and welfare of its employees during the course of a construction project in Bromley and had thus breached section 2 of the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974 when a piece of redundant equipment fell when being lowered from a roof.
R v Whirlpool UK Appliances [2017] EWCA Crim 2186
Dominic acted for Whirlpool UK Appliances Limited in the Court of Appeal in a successful appeal against sentence. Lord Chief Justice Burnett delivered the judgment of the Court on 20 December 2017. The fine was reduced from £700,000 to £300,000. The case concerned a breach of section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The leading case addressing the issues of the very large organisation status and the impact of death on penalty.
R v Tata Steel UK Limited [2017] EWCA Crim 704
Dominic acted for Tata Steel UK Limited in what was the first successful appeal against sentence for a very large organisation. The Court gave guidance in relation to the approach to adopt when sentencing very large organisations and the assessment of likelihood of harm. The fine was reduced from £1.985m to £1.5m.
Dominic is recognised as a leading silk in the field of inquests. He has represented families in some of the most high-profile inquests in recent years, including:
Westminster Terrorist Attack (2017) – Represented the families of two victims, including PC Keith Palmer. The Chief Coroner ruled there was an arguable breach of Article 2 ECHR due to security shortcomings at the Palace of Westminster.
London Bridge Terrorist Attack (2017) – Acted for the family of one victim, with the Chief Coroner finding an arguable breach of the state’s duty to protect life under Article 2 ECHR.
Plymouth Shooting (2021) – Represented three families of victims in the inquest into the deaths caused by Jake Davison.
As a result of Dominic’s health and safety expertise, he regularly acts for corporations with interested person status in inquests following workplace deaths. He also has particular experience of acting in inquests where the death has occurred abroad.
Inquest – Fatal Fire in Residential Block
Represented a housing association in an inquest concerning a fatal fire in a residential block of flats. The fire originated in a flat occupied by a disabled resident. The flat door closer had been removed, preventing the door from self-closing and containing the fire. As a result, the deceased succumbed to smoke inhalation in the corridor. The inquest examined compliance with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, focusing on fire safety arrangements and maintenance procedures. The Coroner concluded the death was accidental. Following the inquest, the housing association reviewed and strengthened its fire safety protocols and maintenance procedures.
Inquest – Electrocution Fatality During Hedge Maintenance
Represented an electricity distribution company in an inquest concerning the death of a self-employed gardener who was electrocuted while pruning a hedge at a private residence. The incident occurred when the gardener inadvertently contacted live overhead power lines obscured by dense ivy covering the utility pole. The inquest revealed that multiple prior reports had been made regarding the need to remove the ivy, but these concerns were not addressed. The jury concluded that the death was accidental, and the company subsequently reviewed and updated its maintenance and safety procedures.
Inquest – Electrocution Fatality During Maintenance Work
Represented a facilities management company in an inquest concerning the death of a maintenance technician who was electrocuted while servicing a heat pump flow switch terminal at a commercial property in Canary Wharf. The Coroner concluded the death was accidental and issued a Prevention of Future Deaths (PFD) report highlighting concerns about arrangements for lone workers employed by independent contractors on the estate. The company responded by reviewing and enhancing its lone working policies and procedures to address the identified risks.
Inquest into the death of PS Matt Ratana
Dominic acted on behalf of Su Bushby in the inquest into the death of her partner, Sergeant Matt Ratana, who was murdered by Louis De Soysa in a holding cell at Croydon Custody Centre following his arrest in the early hours of 25 September 2020. De Zoysa was handcuffed and searched on his arrest. Drugs and bullets were found during the search. De Zoysa was also wearing a holster and carrying a gun which were not discovered. The inquest focussed on this issue. De Zoysa was convicted of murder in June 2023.
A summary of the Senior Coroner’s findings at the inquest is as follows:-
There was a failure on part of the arresting officer to carry out a ‘safe, thorough and systematic’ search.
The cover officer, working with the arresting officer, failed to take steps to ensure than ‘an effective search’ was carried out.
There was a missed opportunity by the arresting officer to observe and challenge De Zoysa as he was wriggling in the custody van whilst being transported to the custody centre. He was probably manoeuvring to gain access to the gun whilst handcuffed to the rear.
When De Zoysa arrived at the custody centre was a failure to notice that one his hands was concealed. He was probably holding the gun.
The Senior Coroner reached a conclusion of unlawful killing.
Inquests into the mass shooting in Keyham, Plymouth
On 12 August 2021, gunman Jake Davison killed his mother and four members of the public, including a three-year-old child, in one of the worst mass shootings in British history. He used a shotgun which was licensed to him by Devon & Cornwall Police in 2017, and which was handed back to him one month before the shootings, Devon & Cornwall Police having seized it in September 2020 following a brutal and unprovoked attack on two children in a park.
Dominic Adamson KC and Juliet Wells represent the families of the members of the public killed, instructed by Patrick Maguire and Kate Daflon of Horwich Cohen Coghlan Solicitors.
Royal Papworth Hospital Inquests
The inquests into two deaths following an outbreak of a waterborne pathogen at a world-leading cardiothoracic transplant centre.
The deaths, at the newly-opened Royal Papworth Hospital in Cambridge, followed infection by a form of bacteria – M.abscessus – previously unknown to have affected a UK hospital water system. The inquests heard that the bacteria are not usually harmful to humans, but can cause severe illness in some individuals, including those suffering from cystic fibrosis, the immunocompromised, and lung transplant patients. The relevant safety guidance, published by the Department for Health, failed to identify M.abscessus as a risk in healthcare settings.
The coroner, Keith Morton KC, recorded a narrative conclusion and directed a preventing future deaths report, concerning the published guidance, to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.
Inquest into the deaths of the victims of the London Bridge Terrorist Attacks [2019]
Acted for the family of one of the victims of the London Bridge Terrorist attack. Central issue in the case was whether the absence of improved security measures on the Bridge amount to an arguable breach of the state’s systemic duty to protect life. The Chief Coroner ruled that there was an arguable breach of the state’s article 2 duty. He issued a PFD report.
Inquest into the deaths of the victims of the Westminster Terrorist Attacks [2018]
Acted for the widows of two of the victims of the Westminster Terrorist attack including the widow of PC Keith Palmer. The Chief Coroner ruled that there was an arguable breach of article 2 as a result of the shortcomings in the security arrangements at the Palace of Westminster. He issued a PFD report.
Inquest into the 96 deaths in the Hillsborough Stadium Disaster
Dominic acted for the Independent Police Complaints Commission who were in the inquests. The IPCC was investigating allegations of police misconduct and attempts to pervert the course of justice.
Dominic has experience public inquiries. He represented a core participant in relation in the public inquiry into the Grenfell Tower. As well as representing core participants in statutory inquiries, Dominic has experience of chairing investigations. In his early career Dominic also acted as junior counsel to the inquiry in three public inquiries.
Grenfell Tower Inquiry [2022]
Dominic is acting for a core participant in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry. He has a particular interest in Module 6 Testing, Government and FRA.
The Grampound Review [2021]
Dominic was appointed by the Corwall Council and Corserv Limited to chair a review.
Dominic maintains a balanced practice representing both claimants and defendants in complex personal injury matters. He has extensive experience in catastrophic injury cases, including traumatic brain injuries, spinal cord injuries resulting in paraplegia and tetraplegia, amputations, and severe burns. His expertise extends to group litigation, particularly those involving Group Litigation Orders, and he regularly handles claims under the Fatal Accidents Act, including cases implicating Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Dominic also advises on allegations of fundamental dishonesty and insurance coverage issues.
Beyond courtroom advocacy, Dominic is a seasoned practitioner in alternative dispute resolution, frequently participating in mediations, Joint Settlement Meetings (JSMs), and other evaluative ADR processes.
Group Liitigation Arising out Manchester Arena Terror Attack (2025)
Representing multiple injured and bereaved families in group claims against the arena operators, contracted security providers, and relevant public authorities.
Tree Surgeon Injury – Workplace Accident Claim (2025)
Represented defendant in a complex personal injury case involving a tree surgeon who sustained paraplegia after being struck by a falling tree during maintenance work. The claim, initially pleaded at over £7 million, centred on disputed contributory negligence and significant disagreements over quantum, particularly concerning care, accommodation, and aids. The matter was resolved through a Joint Settlement Meeting, resulting in a final settlement of £3.75 million.
XX v Kent NHS Trust (2025)
Represented the family of a woman fatally stabbed by her son, who had a history of paranoid psychosis, in a claim against the NHS Trust. The case centred on allegations of inadequate management and monitoring of the son’s mental health, which contributed to the tragic incident.
Novichok Poisoning – Police Officer Injury Claim (2022)
Represented a police officer who was exposed to the nerve agent Novichok while investigating the poisoning of a former Russian spy. The officer was hospitalised for over two weeks and later left the force due to ongoing health issues. Successfully negotiated a confidential settlement with the employing police force
X v MIB (2022)
Acted for claimants arising out of a terrorist attack where vehicle was used as a weapon to perpetrate the attack. Negotiated settlement on behalf of victims parents and children.
R v LF & Another (2022)
Represented a defendant in a complex multi-party claim arising from a domestic explosion that resulted in life-threatening burns to a claimant covering 90% of his body. The case involved disputes over liability between multiple parties. Successfully secured a substantial contribution from a co-defendant, leading to a settlement of £6 million, significantly below the £15 million initially claimed.
X v Y [2021]
Acted for Defendant in catastrophic injury claim. Claim settled for a sum in excess of £10m less than claimed.
A v B [2020]
Acted for Defendant in paraplegia claim. Claim settled for £5m when faced with a claim for £14m.
In the field of product liability, Dominic typically, though not exclusively, represents large scale manufacturers, producers and distributors. He has advised companies based in the UK, the EU and beyond. He has experience of civil litigation concerning a wide variety of products including domestic appliances (e.g. televisions, white goods, heating systems), industrial equipment, vehicle / motorcycle / cycle manufacturing and medical components. He has advised on a wide range of issues including duties and liabilities under consumer protection and product safety legislation including product recalls, insurance coverage disputes, inquests related to product safety and related regulatory prosecutions.
Dominic Adamson secured acquittals of two organisations, a parent and a subsidiary, charged with breaches of s.3 of the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (the duty to ensure safety of non-employees). The subsidiary was also charged with...
Read more
Dominic Adamson KC acted on behalf of Su Bushby in the inquest into the death of her partner, Sergeant Matt Ratana, who was murdered by Louis De Soysa in a holding cell at Croydon Custody Centre following his arrest in...
Read more
The inquests into two deaths following an outbreak of a waterborne pathogen at a world-leading cardiothoracic transplant centre. The deaths, at the newly-opened Royal Papworth Hospital in Cambridge, followed infection by a form of bacteria – M.abscessus – previously unknown...
Read more
Dominic Adamson KC, together with Kizzy Augustin (Partner) and Jenny Boyden (Senior Associate) of Russell Cooke, secured the acquittal of a roofing company (X) following a two week trial at Southwark Crown Court (sitting in the Nightingale Court at Prospero...
Read more
Dominic Adamson KC acted for the widows of two of the victims of the Westminster Terrorist attack. Two of the main issues in the case involve safety systems. First, exploration of the security arrangements on the bridge. Second, examination of...
Read more
Acted on behalf of the parents & partner of Xavier Thomas who died in the London Terrorist Attack. Central issue in the case was whether there was an opportunity lost to provide improved security measures on London Bridge prior to...
Read more
Dominic Adamson KC, leading Harriet Gilchrist, instructed by Mark London, Kathryn Kligerman and Yaasica Hamilton-Haye at Devonshires represented two corporate defendants in a fire safety prosecution relating to a fire which resulted in the near total destruction of an ‘Extra…
The final report on the Grenfell disaster has been published this morning, six years after the inquiry began hearing evidence about what led to the deaths of 72 people in a fire in 2017. Several members of Chambers have been…
Dominic Adamson KC, instructed by and working with Janine Holbrook and Grace Davies of Kennedys, secured acquittals of two organisations, a parent and a subsidiary, charged with breaches of s.3 of the Health & Safety at Work etc Act 1974…
Dominic Adamson KC of Temple Garden Chambers, leading Lois Norris of No5 Chambers, and instructed by Patrick Maguire, Hollie Muckley and Kate Daflon of HCC solicitors acted on behalf of Su Bushby in the inquest into the death of her…
Health & Safety Junior of the Year award at the Chambers Bar Awards 2018.
Thank you for choosing to instruct me in your case. I will need to collect and hold your personal information in order to represent you. I will take all reasonable steps to protect your personal information. I will do all that I reasonably can to ensure I do not infringe your rights or undermine your trust. This Privacy Notice describes the information I collect about you, how it is used and shared, and your rights regarding it.
Data Controller
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 and my registration number is Z2249526.
Data Collection
All of the information that I hold about you is provided to me or gathered solely in the course of and for the purposes of your case, proceedings or any related matter.
Lawful Basis For Processing Your Information
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
My Lawful Basis is Legitimate Interest namely the provision of professional services to you and the proper exercise of my professional obligations and responsibilities. My Lawful Bases may also include: consent and/or performance of a contract with you or steps to enter a contract with you and/or compliance with a legal obligation. In so far as I process sensitive personal data that is necessary in relation to legal proceedings and/or obtaining legal advice and/or otherwise for establishing, exercising or defending legal rights and/or for administering justice.
I Use Your Information To
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:
I May Share Your Personal Data With:
Transfers To Third Countries & International Organisations
I do not transfer any personal data to third countries or international organisations.
Retention
I retain your personal data while you remain a client and for as long as in necessary for me to meet my legal and professional obligations. My Retention and Disposal Policy (copy available on request) details how long I hold data for and how I dispose of it when it no longer needs to be held.
Your Rights
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 and this is the organisation that you can complain to if you are unhappy with how I dealt with you.
Accessing & Correcting Your Information
You may request access to, correction of, or a copy of your information by contacting me in writing at my registered address.
Marketing Opt-Outs
You may opt out of receiving emails and other messages from my Chambers by following the instructions in those messages.
Cookies
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:
I May Update My Privacy Notice
When I make significant changes, I will publish the updated notice on my website profile.
Updated: 01/11/2022
