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
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 ZA109009.
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
Paul Erdunast
Paul Erdunast has a broad practice across both public and private law. Paul acts on behalf of both claimants and defendants in public law matters. He is Junior Counsel to the Crown (Attorney General’s B Panel), appointed September 2026, following 3 years on C Panel. Paul is ranked as a Leading Junior in personal injury (Legal 500, 2026: Tier 4).
In public law matters, Paul regularly represents clients at the High Court and Court of Appeal. Paul acts on behalf of both claimants and defendants in multi-track personal injury cases.
Paul regularly advises on both data protection and AI, including AI projects involving security and healthcare.
Paul is the current editor of the chapters on Principles of Quantum, Quantification of Damages and Deductions and Benefits, and co-editor with Alex Glassbrook of the chapter on Driverless Cars in Bingham’s Personal Injury and Motor Claims Cases.
Paul represents claimants and defendants in public law proceedings across the range of judicial review and civil claims. He regularly acts both led and unled in cases in the senior courts.
Paul is Junior Counsel to the Crown (Attorney General’s B Panel), appointed September 2026, having been on C Panel for three years. Paul has been instructed in judicial review and civil proceedings by Government departments and by other public bodies. These have involved issues relating to human rights and equality legislation.
Paul regularly advises on both data protection and AI. He has advised government departments on AI projects involving security and healthcare, including data protection repercussions, and on a large scale data breach. He is familiar with the law and regulation of AI, including the EU AI Act.
Current and recent instructions include:
Paul is the co-author, with Dr Kathryn Allinson of Bristol University, of the Handbook for Legal Practitioners: Using the UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration as an Interpretative Tool.
Prior to joining Chambers, Paul was the Legal and Parliamentary Officer at ILPA. Paul has delivered training on immigration law to MPs’ caseworkers, lectured on asylum law at London South Bank University, and has spoken at conferences on the EU Settlement Scheme.
Safe Passage International and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 1705 (Admin)
On 7 July 2026 the High Court handed down judgment in Safe Passage International and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 1705 (Admin), dismissing the claim. Paul Erdunast acted for the Secretary of State for the Home Department, led by Alan Payne KC, with Jack Anderson, Julie Anderson and Ryan Ross.
This case related to the suspension on 1 September 2025 of Appendix Family Reunion to the Immigration Rules, in respect of refugee family reunion, and amending Appendix FM: family members to make provision for refugees’ family members to apply under this route, until the outcome of a review of the refugee family reunion route.
The Claimants argued that this decision was unlawful under a number of heads, across domestic rationality, non-discrimination pursuant to domestic law and the ECHR, and the statutory duty to promote the welfare of children. Coppel J dismissed all grounds of challenge.
AL v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWCA Civ 370
On 31 March 2026, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of AL, a 74-year-old woman with major neuro-cognitive disorder, who claimed removal to DR Congo would breach Article 3 ECHR owing to separation from her family carers. She asserted that the First-tier Tribunal had not properly engaged with the impact of separation and that the Upper Tribunal was wrong to find the issue had not been raised below. She claimed she met the criterion in Article 3 healthcare cases of “serious, rapid and irreversible decline” in her health owing to “unavailability of treatment” (i.e. care). Paul Erdunast represented the successful Secretary of State.
This case is notable, because Elisabeth Laing LJ made important comment on the case law regarding matters not raised in the First-tier Tribunal. In Lata (FTT: principal controversial issues) [2023] UKUT 00163 (IAC), a Presidential panel of the Upper Tribunal held that “Where, as here, a point has not been identified by the parties, and nor is it one which independently drawn the attention of the judge, it is not an issue which can be appropriately raised for the first time’ on an appeal”. This is stricter than in other jurisdictions, where Singh v Dass [2019] EWCA Civ 360 applies. In AAZA (Yemen) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025]
EWCA Civ 705, a case in which William Irwin acted for the successful Secretary of State, Bean LJ commented that it would be left to another case to decide whether Lata would apply in its full rigour where doing so would lead to serious injustice.
Elisabeth Laing LJ stated: “99. Finally, I said that I would comment on this court’s decision in AAZA . In the light of the new procedural rigour which applies in the F-tT, the duty on the parties to identify the principal controversial issues in an appeal, their many opportunities to do so, and the fact that appeals to the UT and to this court are on a point of law only, I find it difficult to imagine a case in which the application of Lata could result in any injustice, let alone serious injustice.” It follows that courts and tribunals are unlikely to grant leeway to a party who raises a new matter on appeal in an immigration or asylum case in which Lata applies.
Elisabeth Laing LJ, who drafted the judgment, stated (generously) at §3: “In this court, [the Secretary of State] had the great advantage of being represented by Mr Erdunast.”
R (RKC1 & Ors) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 440 (Admin)
On 27 February 2026, Sheldon J handed down judgment in R (RKC1 & Ors) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 440 (Admin). Sian Reeves and Paul Erdunast acted for the Foreign and Home Secretaries, led by Rory Dunlop KC and with Richard Evans. The claim for judicial review was brought by six people living in Gaza who wish to be reunited with their father in the United Kingdom. They alleged that the Defendants unlawfully failed to assist them to exit Gaza and transit to the UK by offering assurances to Jordan of onward travel to Gaza, no matter the result of their biometrics.
Sheldon J found that an indvidualised decision of the Home Secretary on 18 December 2025 not to offer such onward travel assurances was rational, and did not breach Article 8 or Article 14 ECHR. In particular, he found that Article 8 and Article 14 did not apply on the basis that it is not within the jurisdiction of the ECHR to require a state to offer consular assistance. In any event, he found that the decisions would have been justified under Article 8 on the basis of national security concerns if onward travel assurances were granted and the Claimants were to fail their biometrics, and under Article 14 because there were justifiable foreign policy reasons why other cohorts such as medevacs and students have been granted consular support.
There were three findings of unlawfulness regarding decision-making between September and November 2025, which did not affect the outcome regarding the decision on 18 December 2025 in respect of the Claimants
Siddiqa v Entry Clearance Officer [2024] EWCA Civ 248
The Appellant was the dependent sister of an EEA citizen. The UK put in provision for such extended family members to stay in the UK post-Brexit if they made an ultimately successful application for an EEA family permit prior to Brexit, a scheme that had been in place for a number of years, pursuant to EU free movement law. The Appellant, instead of applying for an EEA family permit, instead made an application under the EU Settlement Scheme Family Permit provisions. This was a different scheme, set up under national law pursuant to the Withdrawal Agreement shortly before Brexit, for direct family members.
The Appellant’s core case was that the Entry Clearance Officer should have treated her claim under the EU Settlement Scheme as an application under the EEA Family Permit scheme. The IMA, the AIRE Centre and Here for Good acted as interveners in this important claim regarding citizens’ rights post-Brexit and the correct scope of the Withdrawal Agreement.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Entry Clearance Officer was entitled to assess her claim under the applicable rules pertaining to the EU Settlement Scheme. Dingemans LJ, giving the leading judgment, found that a strict application of the relevant rules was permissible, and applicants, in circumstances where the requirements were clearly set out on the Government’s website, are expected to make the proper application. There was no error in the finding of fact of the First-Tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal that she had made an EU Settlement Scheme application and not an EEA Family Permit application.
Paul Erdunast acted for the successful Entry Clearance Officer, led by Julia Smyth and with Natasha Jackson, both of Landmark Chambers, instructed by the Government Legal Department
Sagar v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWHC 3313 (Admin)
On 19 December 2024, the High Court dismissed this judicial review. The Appellant was an Indian national, whose brother and parents had pre-settled status under Appendix EU through his brother’s wife, an EEA national. He arrived in the UK on 18 August 2021 as a visitor with leave valid for six months. This was after the cut-off point for an application to be made to the EU Settled Status scheme (“EUSS”), and after the deadline for applying for a document “facilitating” his residence, an essential prerequisite for leave under EUSS.
Following his becoming an overstayer, he was served a s.120 notice. In his response he sought, among other things, leave under the EUSS and leave arising from Article 8 ECHR. These submissions were refused in May 2023 on the basis that there was no EUSS claim as the correct application process had not been followed, but that he could make an application should he wish and be eligible. In respect of Article 8, his submissions were refused because he only had limited ties to the UK. He was detained and received a notice of intended removal. The Appellant submitted as part of his judicial review claim that the proportionality assessment was unlawful because it failed to consider at all whether he satisfied the requirements of the Immigration Rules in respect of the EUSS claim.
The SSHD submitted that regardless of whether the Appellant’s submissions on that point were correct, the decision would be highly likely not to have been substantially different, because the underlying EUSS claim would have been hopeless. Therefore the judge was required by s.31 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 to dismiss the claim and did not need to go into the above question.
Simon Tinkler sitting as Deputy High Court Judge agreed, and dismissed the claim. There were a number of other arguments, for example an assertion that there was a breach of the SSHD’s obligations under the Withdrawal Agreement, made by the Appellants, which were dismissed on their merits.
Paul is recognised as a leading junior in personal injury (Legal 500, 2026: Leading Juniors, Tier 4). He routinely deals with matters valued well into six figures for both claimants and defendants. He has particular experience in serious knee and leg injury claims.
He regularly advises, conducts client and expert conferences and drafts statements of case in matters requiring careful application of the Ogden tables for future loss of earnings and care.
Recent instructions have included severe injuries with loss of earnings until retirement, mesothelioma and lung cancer claims, and fatal accidents. He has extensive experience acting for sole owners of limited companies, where a detailed case on loss of earnings and careful instruction-taking is required.
He is the current editor of the chapters on Principles of Quantum, Quantification of Damages and Deductions and Benefits in Bingham’s Personal Injury and Motor Claims Cases.
X v A NHS Trust and MoD
Acted for the MoD in a clinical negligence case pleaded at just short of £1m. C ruptured his patellar tendon, said to be culpably missed by clinicians at both Defendants, leading to late surgery, a worse long-term result, and his giving up work as an RAF firefighter. Multiple conflicts of expert evidence arose as to long-term impact on work, including employment evidence on earnings, RAF benefits, and pension loss. Advised on quantum and drafted the MoD’s counter-schedule. Settled with both Defendants at JSM for less than a third of the pleaded sum.
P v H
Acted for a Claimant who suffered a knee injury involving ligament damage in a car accident. His pleaded case was for future loss of earnings on an Ogden 8 analysis, because he could not work in his chosen field for the remainder of his life, owing to residual, permanent muscle weakness, but could work full time elsewhere. Conducted conferences with the client and expert. The Defendant’s case was that owing to his previous low salary, and failure to mitigate his loss, loss of earnings was limited to past loss only. The case was settled at a JSM between the parties’ respective positions for £95,000.
W v X Company (1) Y Government Department (2) and Z Government Department (3)
Acting in an ongoing mesothelioma claim for the Third Defendant.
M v (1) F and (2) S
Acted for a Claimant gardener who suffered a shoulder injury. Drafted a Schedule of Loss on an Ogden Tables basis, and advised on expert evidence. Conducted conferences with client and expert, including dealing with issues relating to his setting up as a limited company. The claim was settled for a six-figure sum.
A v B NHS Trust
Acted in a sensitive personal injury claim in which the conduct alleged by a doctor may have amounted to trespass to the person (civil battery). Advised on strategy and conducted a conference with a urological medical expert after which the claim was successfully settled.
Paul is currently acting on behalf of the East Turkistan Government in Exile in their complaint to the International Criminal Court regarding allegations of genocide and crimes against humanity being perpetrated against the Uyghur and other Turkic peoples in China, led by Rodney Dixon QC and Anne Coulon. He has spoken publicly on an expert panel regarding China’s treatment of the Uyghur people. He recently spoke on an expert panel regarding China’s treatment of the Uyghur people.
Paul is Junior Counsel to the Crown (Attorney General’s C Panel), appointed September 2023. Paul has been instructed in judicial review and civil proceedings by Government departments and by other public bodies. These have involved issues relating to human rights and equality legislation
Paul is a leading member of the Temple Garden Chambers AEV team. Alongside Alex Glassbrook, he is the author of the Driverless Cars chapter of Binghams Personal Injury and Motor Claims Cases (2023). He has written on e-scooter litigation and on data rights as they pertain to EVs.
Paul has advised the UK Government on matters relating to AI.
He has drafted advice on matters relating to smart roads. He has contributed responses to the Law Commission consultations on automated vehicles and remote driving, both alone and with other members of TGC. He regularly writes for Chambers’ Automated and Electric vehicles blog, AEVlaw.com
Paul has been instructed for the Claimants in Mariana v BHP, the group action arising from the Fundão Dam environmental disaster in Brazil.
Paul has been instructed for the Claimants in Mariana v BHP, the group action arising from the Fundão Dam environmental disaster in Brazil.
Paul was instructed as a Junior Counsel to the Brook House Inquiry.
On 27 February 2026, Sheldon J handed down judgment in R (RKC1 & Ors) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 440 (Admin). Sian Reeves and Paul Erdunast...
Read more
On 19 December 2024, the High Court dismissed this judicial review. The Appellant was an Indian national, whose brother and parents had pre-settled status under Appendix EU through his brother’s wife, an EEA national. He arrived in the UK on...
Read more
The Appellant was the dependent sister of an EEA citizen. The UK put in provision for such extended family members to stay in the UK post-Brexit if they made an ultimately successful application for an EEA family permit prior to...
Read more
Rodney Dixon KC is acting for the East Turkestan Government in Exile and Uyghur victims in proceedings before the ICC in respect of the alleged genocide and crimes against humanity committed by Chinese authorities against Uyghurs in ICC States Parties...
Read more
A public inquiry into the mistreatment of individuals who were detained at Brook House Immigration Removal Centre in 2017 Saoirse Townshend & Paul Erdunast form part of the Counsel to the Inquiry Team.
Read more
We are delighted to announce that the applications of Myles Grandison, Kathryn Howarth and Richard Boyle to the Attorney General’s “A” Panel of Counsel have been successful. We are also pleased to announce that Paul Erdunast’s application to the Attorney…
On 7 July 2026 the High Court handed down judgment in Safe Passage International and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 1705 (Admin), dismissing the claim. Paul Erdunast acted for the Secretary of State for the…
On 31 March 2026, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of AL, a 74-year-old woman with major neuro-cognitive disorder, who claimed removal to DR Congo would breach Article 3 ECHR owing to separation from her family carers. She asserted…
On 27 February 2026, Sheldon J handed down judgment in R (RKC1 & Ors) v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 440 (Admin). Sian Reeves and Paul Erdunast…
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 ZA109009.
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
