Matthew enjoys a broad commercial practice. Clients instruct him to advise or act in national and international litigation and arbitrations across Chambers’ practice areas. Matthew was recently named as a Rising Star in Shipping by The Legal 500 2021. He also has a particular interest in cybersecurity matters and drew on his recent experience in such cases when writing ‘A Practical Guide to Cyber Fraud Litigation’. Other recent cases have focused on company and insolvency, civil fraud, and banking disputes.
Matthew is familiar with using interim relief to protect his clients’ positions and has frequently been instructed to obtain or resist emergency relief, often on short notice. This emergency relief has included freezing orders, disclosure orders, interim declarations and other bespoke injunctions.
As well as acting as sole counsel, Matthew has extensive experience of being instructed as part of a team in a number of large and complex commercial disputes. He understands and enjoys the different demands of these cases and the need to work efficiently and effectively with legal and other professionals.
Matthew also accepts instructions to act on a direct access basis or to provide advice in non-contentious situations. He has previously provided opinions for use in foreign jurisdictions or by way of early neutral evaluation.
Example cases
- Sino Channel v Dana Shipping [2018] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 17: Court of Appeal case concerning the validity of an arbitration that had been commenced by serving notices on an apparent agent of the contract of affreightment counterparty (led by Duncan Matthews QC).
- CH Offshore v Internaves Consorcio Naviero and others [2020] EWHC 1710 (Comm): Instructed by the arbitration claimants in an appeal from an arbitration award, wherein the claimant brokers & consultant were successful in their US$10 million London Maritime Arbitrator’s Association (LMAA) arbitration claim for commission & consultancy fees in respect of certain long-term charters (led by Christopher Hancock QC).
- CMOC v Persons Unknown and others [2019] Lloyd’s Rep FC 62: US$8 million claim in the Commercial Court to trace and recover funds that were stolen in a ‘business email compromise’ fraud, involving the first-known occasion that a worldwide freezing injunction has been granted against ‘persons unknown’ (led by Paul Lowenstein QC). .
- Banque Internationale de Commerce v Alaghband and others (claim no: CL-2019-000090): US$3.7 million claim in the Commercial Court in which the bank brings a number of claims arising out of an apparent fraud perpetrated against it by its former customer, now in administration and the subject of a Serious Fraud Office investigation.
- PJSC National Bank Trust and another v Boris Mints and others (claim no: CL-2019-000412): US$708 million claim in the Commercial Court in which two banks bring Russian law claims in respect of an alleged fraud perpetrated by various individuals, who are alleged to have procured the replacement of valuable loans with valueless bonds (led by Duncan Matthews QC).
- Libyan Investment Authority v Credit Suisse and others (claim no: CL-2019-000691): US$200 million claim in the Commercial Court in which the sovereign wealth fund seeks rescission of certain derivative options on the grounds of fraud, illegality, breach of fiduciary duty and undue influence on the part of the international investment bank (led by Roger Masefield QC of Brick Court Chambers).
- Currently instructed in a US$42 million International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration between shareholders in relation to the delayed construction of a shipping port (previously led by Philip Edey QC).
- Libyan Investment Authority v Société Générale and others (claim no: CL-2014-000144): US$2.1 billion claim in the Commercial Court in which the sovereign wealth fund sought rescission of a number of derivative options and other investments on the grounds of fraud and illegality on the part of the international investment bank (led by Mark Howard QC of Brick Court Chambers). Prior to settlement, this was named as one of The Lawyer’s top 20 cases of 2017.
- Previously instructed in a US$200 million London Maritime Arbitrator’s Association (LMAA) arbitration concerning default under four bareboat-hire-purchase agreements (led by Nevil Philips of Quadrant Chambers).
Arbitration
- Sino Channel v Dana Shipping [2018] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 17: Court of Appeal case concerning the validity of an arbitration that had been commenced by serving notices on an apparent agent of the contract of affreightment counterparty (led by Duncan Matthews QC).
Banking and financial services
- Libyan Investment Authority v Credit Suisse and others (claim no: CL-2019-000691): US$200 million claim in the Commercial Court in which the sovereign wealth fund seeks rescission of certain derivative options on the grounds of fraud, illegality, breach of fiduciary duty and undue influence on the part of the international investment bank (led by Roger Masefield QC of Brick Court Chambers).
- Banque Internationale de Commerce v Alaghband and others (claim no: CL-2019-000090): US$3.7 million claim in the Commercial Court in which the bank brings a number of claims arising out of an apparent fraud perpetrated against it by its former customer, now in administration and the subject of a Serious Fraud Office investigation.
- PJSC National Bank Trust and another v Boris Mints and others (claim no: CL-2019-000412): US$708 million claim in the Commercial Court in which two banks bring Russian law claims in respect of an alleged fraud perpetrated by various individuals, who are alleged to have procured the replacement of valuable loans with valueless bonds (led by Duncan Matthews QC).
- Al Farouqi v Ikon Finance Limited & Hantec Markets Limited (claim no: QB-2019-003189): US$53 million claim in the Queen’s Bench Division in which a former client of two FCA-regulated entities brings a number of claims in contract, tort and equity arising out of an alleged fraud perpetrated by the entities on the client.
- Libyan Investment Authority v Société Générale and others (claim no: CL-2014-000144): US$2.1 billion claim in the Commercial Court in which the sovereign wealth fund sought rescission of a number of derivative options and other investments on the grounds of fraud and illegality on the part of the international investment bank (led by Mark Howard QC). Prior to settlement, this was named as one of The Lawyer’s top 20 cases of 2017.
- Previously instructed by a leading international bank in relation to the FCA review of the misselling of interest rate hedging products (IRHPs).
Civil fraud and asset tracing
- CMOC v Persons Unknown and others [2019] Lloyd’s Rep FC 62: US$8 million claim in the Commercial Court to trace and recover funds that were stolen in a ‘business email compromise’ fraud, involving the first-known occasion that a worldwide freezing injunction has been granted against ‘persons unknown’ (led by Paul Lowenstein QC).
- Banque Internationale de Commerce v Alaghband and others (claim no: CL-2019-000090): US$3.7 million claim in the Commercial Court in which the bank brings a number of claims arising out of an apparent fraud perpetrated against it by its former customer, now in administration and the subject of a Serious Fraud Office investigation.
- PJSC National Bank Trust and another v Boris Mints and others (claim no: CL-2019-000412): US$708 million claim in the Commercial Court in which two banks bring Russian law claims in respect of an alleged fraud perpetrated by various individuals, who are alleged to have procured the replacement of valuable loans with valueless bonds (led by Duncan Matthews QC).
- Libyan Investment Authority v Credit Suisse and others (claim no: CL-2019-000691): US$200 million claim in the Commercial Court in which the sovereign wealth fund seeks rescission of certain derivative options on the grounds of fraud, illegality, breach of fiduciary duty and undue influence on the part of the international investment bank (led by Roger Masefield QC of Brick Court Chambers).
- Al Farouqi v Ikon Finance Limited & Hantec Markets Limited (claim no: QB-2019-003189): US$53 million claim in the Queen’s Bench Division in which a former client of two FCA-regulated entities brings a number of claims in contract, tort and equity arising out of an alleged fraud perpetrated by the entities on the client.
- Re Michael John Stanley, Re Layezy Limited and others (claim nos: BR-2019-000453, CR-2019-001703, CR-2019-001704, CR-2019-001706 & CR-2019-001795): Acting for the trustees-in-bankruptcy and liquidators investigating the insolvency of an individual and certain associated companies, which together operated a £53 million betting syndicate for members but where the syndicate has been alleged to have been a vehicle for fraud.
- Libyan Investment Authority v Société Générale and others (claim no: CL-2014-000144): US$2.1 billion claim in the Commercial Court in which the sovereign wealth fund sought rescission of a number of derivative options and other investments on the grounds of fraud and illegality on the part of the international investment bank (led by Mark Howard QC of Brick Court Chambers). Prior to settlement, this was named as one of The Lawyer’s top 20 cases of 2017.
Commodities and international trade
- Banque Internationale de Commerce v Alaghband and others (claim no: CL-2019-000090): US$3.7 million claim in the Commercial Court in which the bank claims in respect of an apparent commodities trading fraud perpetrated against it by its former customer.
- Previously instructed in a US$1.7 million London Maritime Arbitrator’s Association (LMAA) arbitration concerning the misdelivery into storage then to purported receivers of a cargo (led by David Lewis QC).
- Previously instructed in a US$3.2 million International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration regarding off-specification acetone that was said to have deteriorated in storage.
Company law
- Currently instructed in a US$2 million London Maritime Arbitrator’s Association (LMAA) arbitration between shareholders in a joint venture company, where one shareholder is alleging breach of contract, breach of director’s duties and fraud as against the other shareholder.
- Aliyev v Partner Capital and others (claim no. QB-2018-000502): £200,000 claim for damages in the Queen’s Bench Division where an investor alleged breach of contractual and fiduciary duties said to have been owed to him by two companies and various directors of the second company, where the investor engaged the services of the first company to advise the investor in acquiring a shareholding in the second company.
Energy and infrastructure
- Instructed in a US$42 million International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration between shareholders in relation to the delayed construction of a shipping port (previously led by Philip Edey QC).
- Previously acted as tribunal secretary (to Julian Lew QC) in a US$6 million ad hoc arbitration under UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules concerning the construction of a joint venture and financing agreement in relation to oil and gas exploration.
Insolvency and restructuring
- Re Michael John Stanley, Re Layezy Limited and others (claim nos: BR-2019-000453, CR-2019-001703, CR-2019-001704, CR-2019-001706 & CR-2019-001795): Acting for the trustees-in-bankruptcy and liquidators investigating the insolvency of an individual and certain associated companies, which together operated a £53 million betting syndicate for members but where the syndicate has been alleged to have been a vehicle for fraud.
- Re Robson Asset Management ManCo (claim no: CR-2019-007334): Acting for the petitioner in a contested winding up petition, where the operator of a major London hotel sought the liquidation of its former management company in respect of £1 million debt.
- Previously instructed in a €24 million London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) matter concerning a shipbuilding contract and cross-border insolvency issues.
Jurisdiction, conflicts and enforcement
- Empeirikos v Xanthouli (claim no. QB-2019-004578): €3 million claim in the Queen’s Bench Division for an enforcement at common law of a Greek judgment which is currently subject to appeal.
- Unwired Planet v Huawei [2017] EWHC 2831 (Pat): Claim in Chancery Division concerning certain mobile communication patents, subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court. Previously instructed to obtain an anti-suit injunction to restrain litigation in the courts of the People’s Republic of China (led by Thomas Raphael QC).
Shipping
- CH Offshore v Internaves Consorcio Naviero and others [2020] EWHC 1710 (Comm): Instructed by the arbitration claimants in an appeal from an arbitration award, wherein the claimant brokers were successful in their US$10 million London Maritime Arbitrator’s Association (LMAA) arbitration claim for commission in respect of certain long-term charters (led by Christopher Hancock QC).
- FSL-25 v Torm Singapore (claim no. CL-2018-000741): US$1.9 million claim in the Commercial Court for wasted cost and lost profits following an allegedly defective redelivery of a vessel following a bareboat charterparty.
- Previously instructed in a US$200 million London Maritime Arbitrator’s Association (LMAA) arbitration concerning default under four bareboat-hire-purchase agreements (led by Nevil Philips of Quadrant Chambers).
- Previously instructed in a €24 million London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) matter concerning a shipbuilding contract and cross-border insolvency issues.
- Previously instructed in a US$3 million London Maritime Arbitrator’s Association (LMAA) arbitration in respect of an investment in a chartering business (led by Timothy Hill QC).
- Previously seconded to a Norwegian Defence Club.
Technology, media and telecoms
- CMOC v Persons Unknown and others[2019] Lloyd’s Rep FC 62: US$8 million claim in the Commercial Court to trace and recover funds that were stolen in a ‘business email compromise’ fraud, involving the first-known occasion that a worldwide freezing injunction has been granted against ‘persons unknown’ (led by Paul Lowenstein QC).
- Previously instructed in a US$200,000 London Maritime Arbitrator’s Association (LMAA) arbitration between counterparties where a fraudster had procured the paying party under the contract to pay the fraudster instead of the payee party.