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.
Resources
Blogs and Publications
Trending Topics
French – working
Nick is consistently recommended by Chambers & Partners and the Legal 500 as a leading barrister across his practice areas.
Some selected recent quotes:
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 Z899188X.
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
Nicholas Chapman
Nick Chapman is a leading junior barrister with a litigation and advisory practice focusing mainly on public and administrative law, public inquiries and inquests.
Nick is consistently ranked as one of the country’s leading barristers across his practice areas by the main independent legal directories, where he is described as “a class act”, “incredibly impressive”, “an outstanding advocate” and “an exceptional team leader” who is “unflappable”, “completely charming” and “a pleasure to work with”. He regularly draws praise for his judgement, tactical and strategic acumen, pragmatism, efficiency, work ethic and intellect, and for his expertise as a leader of large legal teams.
Nick has appeared at every level of the domestic court, tribunal and coronial system, from the magistrates and First-tier Tribunal to the Supreme Court. He has acted in scores of reported cases in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court, often raising cutting edge issues. He has been successful in every case in which he has appeared before the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court.
Nick regularly leads teams of lawyers including, currently, as leading counsel representing the UK Government in the Post Office Inquiry and Southport Inquiry. His clients include Prime Ministers and other senior politicians, Government departments, agencies and arm’s length bodies, the UK’s Security and Intelligence services, multinational corporations, national sports bodies, third sector organisations, and Magic Circle and other leading firms of solicitors.
Nick has been a member of the Attorney General’s A panel of counsel since 2019 and was previously a member of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s A panel, amongst several other appointments.
Recent highlights of Nick’s practice include:
Please see the Expertise section below for further details of Nick’s practice.
Nick is regarded as one of the country’s leading public law barristers, regularly acting in the some of the most complex, important and high-profile cases in the field.
His practice covers the full range of public and regulatory law matters, including (by way of example) human rights and civil liberties, constitutional law, national security and counter-terrorism, public procurement, criminal justice and penal law, EU law, discrimination, public international law, tax, nationality, immigration and asylum law and professional discipline.
His cases are often at the cutting edge of legal developments, and he has appeared in many reported cases and at all levels of the domestic court and tribunal system up to and including the Supreme Court.
He is one of only a handful of members of both the Attorney General’s “A panel” of counsel and of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s “A panel” of counsel.
R (MCML Ltd & Foster) v HMRC & Southwark Crown Court
Judicial review claim brought by a City firm and its former head of equity finance trading.
The claimants challenged search warrants obtained and executed by HMRC following requests from Denmark and Germany, in connection with investigations into suspected Cum-Ex fraud totalling £1/2 billion. They advanced 8 grounds of challenge, including alleged non-disclosure when applying for the warrants.
Following a 3-day hearing, the Divisional Court refused the claim on all grounds. It certified two points of law of general public importance, relating to the duty of full and frank disclosure in cross-border cases. The Supreme Court refused permission to appeal.
KG (Turkey) v SSHD
Appeal in the Court of Appeal brought by a failed Turkish national asylum claimant who had been convicted of an offence of serious violence.
Leading case on the judicial duty to give reasons for a decision and of the adverse credibility consequences of failing to claim asylum at the earliest opportunity.
R (Somers) v Parole Board
Judicial review brought by a convicted child rapist and murderer against the Parole Board’s decision to refuse transfer to an open prison without holding an oral hearing.
Important case concerning the circumstances in which a life sentence prisoner is entitled to an oral hearing in accordance with Art.5 ECHR rights.
R (Roehrig) v SoS for the Home Department [2023] EWHC 31 (Admin)
Judicial review claim concerning the citizenship status of British-born children of EU citizens.
R (Bailey & Morris) v Secretary of State for Justice
High profile judicial review claim concerning the Secretary of State for Justice’s decision to amend the Parole Board Rules and to issue guidance about the effect of the amendment. The rule change, which was made without consultation, purported to prohibit MOJ staff from stating in their reports their views on the “ultimate issue” – the suitability of the prisoner for release into the community. The MOJ issued accompanying guidance going beyond this restriction, based on the incorrect belief that the rule change prohibited MOJ witnesses from giving “ultimate issue” evidence in any context, even where directed to do so by the Parole Board. The High Court held that the rule change amounted to an unlawful interference with the independent judicial determination of the legality of detention, contrary to common law and/or Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and was irrational. It also held that the guidance was unlawful. The Court adjourned the hearing for consideration of issues of relief and costs, and for submissions on the question of whether non-compliance with the Parole Board’s directions amounts to a contempt of court.
R (MXK, AXB & others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
The High Court has handed down judgment allowing a claim for judicial review challenging the Home Office’s policy to stop and detain all passengers owing debts to the NHS when seeking entry at the border.
The policy – which was unpublished – incorrectly informed Border Force officers that NHS debt may be a basis for cancelling leave to enter or remain. It also indicated that it was lawful to detain individuals to obtain their details and pass them on to the NHS. The policy was withdrawn shortly before the hearing.
Mr Justice Chamberlain held that the Home Secretary had also breached her duty to consider the impact of the policy on the groups protected under the Equality Act 2010, including women, who are known to be disproportionately impacted by NHS charging.
Nicholas Chapman, leading Richard Evans, represented the Home Secretary.
R (CX1-CX8) v Secretary of State for Defence and Secretary of State for the Home Department
A series of 3 judicial review claims (the third of which involved closed proceedings) and linked cases.
The claimants were Afghan former BBC journalists and counter-terrorism judges who claimed to be eligible for relocation to the UK pursuant to the Government’s ARAP policy.
Issues included the proper approach to interpreting policy.
R (KA and 6 others) v SoS for the Home Department, SoS for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs a nd SoS for Defence [2023] ACD 1
Representing HM Government in challenge concerning Operation Pitting, the evacuation of Afghanistan in August 2021, and its subsequent policy towards those remaining in Afghanistan.
R (SoS for Justice) v Parole Board [2022] 1 WLR 4270, [2022] ACD 81
Leading authority concerning the nature of the public protection test.
R (Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens and O (a child)) v SoS for the Home Department [2022] 2 WLR 343
Supreme Court case concerning the fees charged to children to register as British citizens. The leading case on principles of statutory construction.
R (Good Law Project, Dale Vince, Ecotricity New Ventures Ltd and others) v Prime Minister and SoS for Health and Social Care (2021)
Representing the Prime Minister and Health Secretary in challenge to the Government’s Covid-19 mass asymptomatic testing programme, known as ‘Operation Moonshot’, and the procurement exercise relating to it.
R (Dickins) v Parole Board [2021] 1 WLR 4126, [2021] ACD 83
Judicial review concerning the Parole Board’s powers to reconsider its decisions where previously unavailable evidence has come to light.
R (G-A-Y Group Ltd) v SoS for Health and Social Care (2020)
Judicial review of the hospitality curfew imposed in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.
R (Marie McCourt) v Parole Board of England and Wales [2020] EWHC 2320, [2020] ACD 127
Challenge to the Parole Board’s decision to release Ian Simms, who murdered Helen McCourt in 1988 and who has refused to reveal the location of her remains; also concerning the standing of victims to bring judicial review claims.
R (National Farmers Union) v SoS for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2020] EWHC 1192 (Admin), [2021] Env LR 1
Judicial review of the decision to prevent badger culling in Derbyshire in 2019, involving allegations that the Prime Minister and his fiancée had improperly interfered in the decision-making process.
SoS for the Home Department v Devani [2020] 1 WLR 2613, [2020] Imm AR 1183
Concerning the circumstances in which the courts are permitted to reject a foreign government’s assurances of good treatment following extradition; and the slip rule in the tribunal jurisdiction.
R (Al-Enein) v SoS for the Home Department [2020] 1 WLR 1349, [2020] Imm AR 553, [2020] INLR 365
Court of Appeal decision relating to the vires of the Secretary of State’s good character policy for naturalisation applications; and clarification of the JCWI constitutional law principle.
SoS for the Home Department v JS (Uganda) [2020] 1 WLR 43, [2020] Imm AR 258, [2020] INLR 67, The Times, 10 January 2020
Court of Appeal case concerning the meaning and applicability of the Refugee Convention and the circumstances in which refugee status can be cancelled or withdrawn.
SoS for the Home Department v QT [2019] EWHC 2583 (Admin)
Representing the Home Secretary in review of the decision to impose terrorism prevention and investigation measures (TPIM) on QT, a member of Al-Muhajiroun (ALM).
Belhaj & Boudchar v Rt Hon Jack Straw, Sir Mark Allen CMG, MI6, MI5, Attorney General, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Home Office (2018)
Representing all 7 defendants in claim involving allegations of British government and intelligence agency complicity in kidnap, extraordinary rendition and torture of the former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and his pregnant wife.
Nick is recognised as one of the country’s leading inquests and inquiries specialists.
Public Inquiries
Nick is regularly sought after for his expertise in representing bodies and individuals centrally involved in public inquiries.
He is currently representing the Cabinet Office, the Prime Minister and No.10 Downing Street in the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry.
Inquests
Nick has a busy coronial practice, where he is sought after by insured parties and central government in high-profile and sensitive inquests. His broad public law expertise and criminal law background mean he is ideally placed to provide his clients with whole-case advice and representation.
Undercover Policing Inquiry
The long-running “spy cops” inquiry, chaired by Sir John Mitting.
Representing the Cabinet Office in relation to a request for highly classified documents.
Covid Inquiry
Representing the Cabinet Office, including the Prime Minister and No.10 Downing Street.
Grenfell Tower Inquiry
Representing the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.
Post Office Horizon Inquiry
Representing the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
Royal Papworth Hospital inquests
Representing OCS Group UK Ltd in the inquests following a fatal bacterial outbreak in the water system at the Royal Papworth Hospital in Cambridge, a world leading transplant centre.
Smart Motorways inquests
Representing National Highways and the Secretary of State for Transport in high-profile inquests concerning a series of deaths following vehicle breakdowns on newly rolled-out Smart Motorways.
Representing one of the country’s top schools following the suicide of a pupil.
Representing the world’s leading private flight services operator following the death of an employee crushed by new hangar doors at London Luton Airport.
Nick’s early years of practice were spent in the criminal courts, where he developed a deep understanding of criminal practice and procedure. During this time, he acted in some of the very biggest criminal cases, including (for example) the first international corruption case prosecuted by the SFO and the VAT fraud prosecution representing the culmination of the largest criminal investigation ever conducted by HMRC. He also defended in a number of health & safety and environmental prosecutions.
Nick continues to accept instructions to advise and act in a small number of suitable criminal cases involving alleged health & safety or environmental offending, where his knowledge and experience of the interface between criminal and civil law is a particular advantage for his clients.
Nick’s early years of practice were spent in the criminal courts, where he developed a deep understanding of criminal practice and procedure. During this time, he acted in some of the very biggest criminal cases, including (for example) the first international corruption case prosecuted by the SFO and the VAT fraud prosecution representing the culmination of the largest criminal investigation ever conducted by HMRC. He also defended in a number of health & safety and environmental prosecutions.
Nick continues to accept instructions to advise and act in a small number of suitable criminal cases involving alleged health & safety or environmental offending, where his knowledge and experience of the interface between criminal and civil law is a particular advantage for his clients.
Nick’s public law practice also takes in environmental law issues, including where issues under the Aarhus Convention arise.
The High Court has handed down judgment allowing a claim for judicial review challenging the Home Office’s policy to stop and detain all passengers owing debts to the NHS when seeking entry at the border. The policy – which was...
Read more
High profile judicial review claim concerning the Secretary of State for Justice’s decision to amend the Parole Board Rules and to issue guidance about the effect of the amendment. The rule change, which was made without consultation, purported to...
Read more
The High Court today handed down judgment in high-profile judicial review claims brought by eight former BBC journalists against the refusal to relocate them and their families to the UK under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (“ARAP”). The High...
Read more
High-profile judicial review claim relating to the evacuation of Afghanistan in summer 2021 and policies relating to those in or wishing to enter the UK. The claim raised a number of important issues, concerning the lawfulness of the process of...
Read more
The Inquiry was established in non-statutory form on 29th September 2020. It was converted to a statutory inquiry on 1st June 2021. Nicholas Chapman is representing The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry...
Read more
The UK Covid-19 Inquiry has been set up to examine the UK’s response to and impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, and learn lessons for the future. Andrew O’Connor KC, Fiona Canby, Zeenat Islam & Alice Hands form part of the...
Read more
On 17th December Nick Chapman delivered the final closing statement in the Post Office Inquiry, chaired by Sir Wyn Williams. The oral statement, which followed a 97-page written statement, has been prominent in national TV and print media. Nick has…
Temple Garden Chambers are proud to announce its performance in the recently published Chambers and Partners UK Bar Guide 2025, achieving a total of 52 individual rankings and securing recognition across 14 practice areas. In a notable highlight, Temple Garden…
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…
The High Court has today handed down judgment refusing claims for judicial review brought by MCML Ltd, a substantial financial institution previously known as ED&F Man, and the former head of its equity trading desk. The claimants challenged search warrants…
French – working
Nick is consistently recommended by Chambers & Partners and the Legal 500 as a leading barrister across his practice areas.
Some selected recent quotes:
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 Z899188X.
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
