Matthew Bradley

Recommended by the Legal 500 2019 and Chambers & Partners 2019 as a leading junior in commercial disputes, Matthew is experienced in Commercial Court, QBD, Chancery, Companies Court and TCC proceedings, as well as in arbitrations conducted both ad hoc and under specified institutional rules.  He is at ease seeking freezing and other mandatory injunctions at short notice.  His commercial cases often involve group / multi-party actions. Most of his cases straddle various areas of law, including commercial contract, the economic torts, civil fraud, company law and the law of fiduciary duties.  His wide sector experience extends to aviation, energy/natural resources and banking disputes.  Recent experiences have focused on the following areas:-

(1) Commercial Contract Disputes

Matthew regularly appears in and advises on disputes embracing all aspects of commercial contract law.  He provides clear advice on the proper construction of contracts and is experienced in litigating matters spanning the whole range of contractual law, across a variety of business contexts.  He has acted in a large number of claims alleging misrepresentation.  Some examples of recent experience include:-

• Acting for property investment firm in breach of contract claim for c. £5m against various Luxembourg companies.
• Acting for foreign company in LCIA arbitration involving EPC/O&M contracts in the solar energy industry. The case involves highly technical evidence, complex contractual warranties and the validity of calls on performance bonds.
• Kupeli & others v (1) Kibris Turk Hava Yollari Sirketi (2) Atlasjet Havacilik Anonim Sirketi [2016] EWHC 930 (QB), [2016] 4 Costs LR 747 – successfully representing (against Leading Counsel) 837 claimant passengers in a trial of test claims against a Turkish airline, seeking damages for the airline’s failure to fly them.  The claim engaged contract law and the EU Denied Boarding Regulations, as well as arguments as to the correct approach to costs in test case litigation. Acted in appeal against the costs judgment in the Court of Appeal in May 2018.
• Higgins v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd (TCC, 2017) – application to remove arbitrator under section 72(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996, in context of breach of contract dispute.
• Advising and acting in insurance coverage disputes across various contexts, including fire and property damage claims.
• Advising and acting in relation to various claims involving shareholder and share purchase agreements, including breach of warranty and indemnity claims, claims on guarantees and various claims founded on allegations of repudiatory breach and misrepresentation.

(2) Fraud / Economic Torts Claims & Associated Interim Relief 

Matthew is well used to the complexities and evidential challenges of fraud claims, and has a special interest in claims in conspiracy and the economic torts more generally.  He is also experienced in obtaining and resisting the forms of interim relief commonly associated with such claims, including freezing injunctions. Examples of recent experience include:

• Palmer Birch v Lloyd & Lloyd [2018] EWHC 2316 (TCC) – successfully representing claimant in trial of economic tort claims (procuring breach of contract, unlawful means conspiracy). Defendants’ “corporate veil” defence dismissed.  This is the first decision to consider what the Supreme Court meant by the phrase a “just cause or excuse” for a conspiracy in its decision in JSC BTA Bank v Khrapunov [2018] UKSC 19 (see article on this topic below).
• Acting with Justin Fenwick QC for high net worth individual in a Commercial Court claim, resisting an application for security for an arbitral award under s.70 of the Arbitration Act 1996 and an associated application for a worldwide freezing order.
• Advising on early stages of high value ad hoc arbitration in relation to an investment management firm.
• Jackson v Thompsons Solicitors & Ors [2015] EWHC 218 (QB) (led by Patrick Green QC) – six week High Court trial in economic torts claim relating to a group litigation order. The claim involved allegations of unlawful means conspiracy, procuring a breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation. Acted in 2016 application to Court of Appeal (Jackson v Thompsons & Others [2016] EWCA Civ 138).
• Gabriel v Little and Others 15 ITELR  387, [2013] 1 BCLC 750 (first instance); [2013] EWCA Civ 1513, 16 ITELR 567 (CoA) – advising and successfully representing (against Leading Counsel) defendants resisting claims of fraudulent misrepresentation, dishonest assistance in breach of a Quistclose trust, knowing receipt of trust money and monies had and received in nine day Chancery Division trial; successfully defending the subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeal.

(3) International Litigation / International Group Actions

Matthew is experienced in work with an international dimension involving conflicts of laws and jurisdictional issues. Recent examples of claims involving an international dimension include:-

• Ang v Reliantco Investments Ltd [2019] EWHC 879 (Comm) – jurisdiction challenge under Brussels Recast Regulation; consumer status under Art.17.
• Advising French-owned Algerian Company as to contractual indemnities owing to the subsidiary of a major oil company involved in a joint venture at a gas plant, Algeria. The claim engages both Algerian law and broader questions of jurisdiction.
• Various cases concerning the registration and enforcement of foreign judgments under the Recast Brussels Regulation.
• Cross-jurisdictional claim by high net worth trader against a financial options brokerage website, involving interesting jurisdictional issues and allegations of misrepresentation.
• Advising as to various disputes involving letters of request issued by English and foreign courts.
• Acting (as junior) in various claims involving the question of liability for the foreign-based subsidiary of an English parent company (Guerrero & 30 Ors v Monterrico Metals Plc; Kessabo and others v African Barrick Gold Plc ). In the course of these instructions he advised on conflicts of law, the Act of State doctrine / State Immunity, freezing injunctions, anti-suit injunctions and issues of confidentiality.

(4) Restrictive Covenant Disputes

Matthew is ranked for employment work in the Legal 500.  Much of his practice in this area relates to High Court restrictive covenant fiduciary duties / confidential information claims. He has extensive experience of urgent High Court injunction proceedings seeking to restrain the alleged abuse of confidential information / breaches of restrictive covenants across various industry contexts, including recruitment, financial services and the insurance sector.  His work in this area draws on and complements his knowledge and experience of economic torts claims.

Ranked in the Legal 500 2019 as a leading junior in company law, Matthew is experienced in chancery litigation involving the collapse of business relationships and regularly acts in and advised on partnership disputes under the Partnership Act 1890 and unfair prejudice petitions under s.994 of the Companies Act 2006.  He is well versed in matters relating to the alleged misconduct of directors and associated allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, and relief arising from board-room bust-ups in all their many forms.

Matthew has a particular niche in employee/shareholder claims involving directors, and is well experienced in bringing shareholder actions in the High Court in tandem with employment tribunal proceedings. He enjoys advising on strategy in relation to such cases and is ranked for his employment expertise in Legal 500.

Examples of recent experience include:

• Advising on arbitration in relation to a partnership dispute in investment management context, involving wide-ranging claims of unlawful means conspiracy and breaches of fiduciary duties.
• Potts v USthree Group Holdings Limited (High Court, Insolvency & Companies List, 2017 – 2018). Shareholders dispute: allegations of fraud; battle for control of the company; application for restoration to the register of members; rectification of articles of association; relief under s.994 of the Companies Act.
• Multi-Jurisdictional trusts dispute re BVI/Cayman/Curaçao companies: Matthew has been acting in a multi-jurisdictional dispute concerning the assets of various companies together holding the assets of various trusts, totalling many millions.  His work on this matter has engaged various questions of foreign law and issues of fraud, conspiracy, dishonest assistance and knowing receipt as well as double derivative actions.
• Mortgage Trust Ltd v (1) Willmett (In Liquidation) (2) Smith [2018] EWHC 488 (Ch) – acting for solicitor resisting breach of trust claim arising out of large-scale mortgage fraud perpetrated by a former partner. Matthew successfully obtained a strike out of the claim for want of prosecution and successful resisted a subsequent appeal against this order.
• Acting for minority shareholders in claim for unfair prejudice, founded on their alleged wrongful removal from the management of a security company. Matthew advised on the employment aspects of these claims at the same time.
• Advising potential defendant in relation to claim arising out of a warrant for the issue of shares in a corporate finance introduction agreement. The case involves potential breaches of duty by the director who signed the agreement on behalf of the defendant company.
• Coles v Petroplan Limited & Others  – Advising and representing Claimant in unfair prejudice dispute focussing on whether the Claimant is a “Good” or “Bad” Leaver under Articles of Association. The case straddled contract, company and employment law and Matthew is also acted on concurrent employment tribunal proceedings.
• Advising as to potential claim against LPA receivers engaging issues such as validity of appointment, trespass and conversion.
• SIS Digital Media v IMTV Digital  – acting in urgent Chancery Division application under the Insolvency Act 1986 against administrators of an insolvent company. The dispute concerned the ownership rights of an advertising tower.
• Advising as to various directors’ disqualification matters under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.

Recommended in both legal directories for his product liability work, recent editions note that he is “An excellent junior, whose advice is amazingly coherent and concise. He is a superb cross-examiner” and“technically very strong”. It comments that he has a “very strong understanding of the Consumer Protection Act and is known for his ability to turn his hand to both civil and criminal product liability defence.  ”

Matthew’s product liability work is broad-ranging and encompasses:

• Group/Multi-party actions – As with his commercial work, many of his product liability cases involve group / multi-party actions and he has provided seminars on this topic.
• Commercial product liability disputes including sale of goods and international sales of goods claims.
• Property damage claims involving damage allegedly caused by a variety of products, including component parts installed within products.
• Product recalls – Matthew wrote the chapter “Product Recall in the EU” in the International Product Law Manual and has advised on the adequacy of product recalls in various contexts, including in fire and property damage claims.
• Automotive claims – Matthew has represented various well known foreign-based manufacturers of cars and their subsidiary companies in claims brought under the Consumer Protection Act and in contract. He is familiar with the jurisdictional issues that may arise in those cases.
• Inquests – Matthew has appeared at a large number of inquests on behalf of manufacturers of domestic appliances and products alleged to have caused death and is sensitive to the brand reputation issues engaged by such hearings.

Recent instructions include:

• Acting for various defendants in claims relating to metal-on-metal hip implants.
• Advising as to a potential group action against a variety of diesel car manufacturers.
• Advising and acting for UK food manufacturer in relation to claim against Polish supplier of contaminated food ingredients.
• Combination Hip Prosthesis Litigation – Defending (with Charles Gibson QC) various consultant surgeons alleged to have become a “producer” of metal-on-metal hip implants within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 by reason of having combined component parts from different manufacturers. Resisting an application for a reference to the ECJ.
• Advising as to a potential product recall in relation to a water filtration device.
• Advising on defence to a claim in relation to the write off of a hire vehicle.
• Defending claim for damage caused to a  helicopter engine in respect of an allegedly negligently flown hire helicopter. The case involved complex technical and engineering evidence and recently settled.
• Acting for various car manufacturers and their subsidiaries in relation to claims alleging spontaneous outbreaks of fire and claims alleging defect etc.
• Acting in a number of Consumer Protection Act and negligence claims brought against manufacturers of household appliances alleged to have caused house fires.
• Claim involving allegations of defect as to bespoke weighing machines for use in commercial packaging operations.
• Acting for defendant in international Sale of Goods claim (USA) alleging defective supply of turf netting solutions.
• Appearing at inquests for the manufacturers of domestic appliances and products alleged to have caused death.

He has previously been instructed as junior counsel in high value multiparty product liability actions, including the Sabril Litigation in relation to a group action brought by claimants alleging injuries following taking anti epilepsy medication and the Petrol Contamination Litigation in which he acted for one of the producers of contaminated petrol supplied to thousands of supermarket customers in the spring of 2007.

Matthew is experienced in professional liability and negligence claims, particularly those involving solicitors, independent financial advisors, valuers, surveyors and insurance brokers. Examples of recent professional negligence work include:

• Acting in claim against solicitors in relation to a series of property transfers undertaken without proper client instructions or advice.
• Acting for firm of independent financial advisors alleged to have acted negligently and in breach of regulatory rules (COBS).
• Acting in relation to a claim involving the negligent provision of hedge fund investment advice.
• Securing the strike out of a substantial claim against a firm of solicitors for the allegedly negligent conduct of personal injury litigation.
• Advising and drafting in relation to a claim against solicitors for negligent conduct of construction litigation (settled at mediation).
• Advising and drafting in relation to a claim against a firm of solicitors for negligent advice and representation in relation to licensed premises (settled at mediation).
• Advising and drafting in relation to a substantial claim against a firm of licensed conveyancers.
• Advising and drafting in relation to a claim against construction professionals arising out of negligently conducted works.
• Advising and drafting in relation to negligently conducted employment litigation.

Matthew regularly acted in Consumer Credit Act trials in his early years and has since gained significant experience of claims involving the mis-selling of interest rate swap products and claims brought under FSMA 2000.  He is regularly instructed in claims relating to loans, guarantees and those engaging the Consumer Credit legislation (in particular its unfair relations provisions)

Examples of recent banking and finance experience include:

• Pilgrim Rock Ltd v Iwaniuk [2019] GCCR 17013 – appearing for successful respondent in appeal against decision in an unfair relationship challenge under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in which the trial judge re-wrote a loan agreement, relieving Matthew’s client of some £1.3m in interest (decision below reported at [2017] GCCR 15027).
• Syndicate Bank v Dansinganis & Siglo 21 Limited (Chancery Division, 2016 – 2017) – defending claim on legal charge and personal guarantee brought by Indian Bank, primarily on basis of undue influence. Judgment awaited.
• S v BHIM Ltd – advising and acting in IFA’s defence of claim for damages in relation to a mis-sold investment. Various breaches of COBS rules and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 are alleged.
• OF Ltd v BTIS Limited (High Court) – Advising and acting on substantial claim arising out of investment advice as to a Fund of Hedge Funds. The claim involved allegations of misrepresentation, breaches of COBS Rules and the mis-sale of an Unregulated Collective Investment Scheme.
• M & Ors v ABC & Ors – Advising a group of 50+ claimants in a claim issued in the Chancery Division for rescission of loan agreements with a Cypriot Bank, advanced in relation to an allegedly mis-sold golf resort development.  The defendants dispute the jurisdiction of the English Courts.  The claims involve allegations of misrepresentation, deceit against certain parties and professional negligence against others.

Matthew’s experiences in commercial chancery matters and international commercial matters serves him well in offshore litigation, an area in which he has acquired significant experience in recent years.

Recent examples of such experience include:

• Assisting Jersey-based law firm in proceedings relating to an acrimonious boardroom dispute between Korean owners. The case engaged issues as to the proper authority to act for the company.
• Multi-Jurisdictional dispute re BVI/Cayman/Curaçao companies: Matthew has been acting in a multi-jurisdictional dispute concerning the assets of various companies together holding the assets of various trusts, totalling many millions.  His work on this matter has so far engaged questions of Liechtenstein, Cayman Islands and Curaçao law and issues of fraud, conspiracy, dishonest assistance and knowing receipt as well as double derivative actions.
• Claim in misrepresentation and breach of contract against BVI-registered company.

Matthew is a member of the International Bar Association and of C5, and is attuned to the cultural sensitivities which arise when working for clients from around the globe, and in particular the Asian  and CIS markets.

In recent years Matthew has built up a significant body of experience in the energy sector. His expertise spans the construction and operation of traditional oil & gas infrastructure facilities, but he also has significant experience in the renewables sector. From his earliest days Matthew worked on product liability cases involving highly technical evidence, which experiences stand him in good stead when acting in and advising on energy matters.

Matthew also has significant experience of litigation in the mining sector and has a solid understanding of both the commercial and operational aspects of mining companies. He has particular experience in disputes arising out of the interaction between mining companies and local communities.

Recent examples of Matthew’s energy and natural resources experience include:

• Defending French-owned Algerian Company against claim by BP subsidiary arising out of contractual indemnities allegedly owed in respect of a joint venture at a gas plant in Algeria.
• F&S  Solar Invest UK Limited v Ampegon AG – share purchase agreement breach of warranty claim in relation to solar farm constructed under the FiTs scheme.
• Defending claim brought by Chevron relating to allegedly defective bespoke pipeline repair equipment.
• Acting for Italian company in breach of contract dispute relating to the supply of solar panels.
• Acting for claimant in repudiatory breach of contract dispute arising out of waste-to-energy power plant.  Involved disputed allegations of defective equipment and associated engineering evidence.
• Advising claimant in early stages of arbitration re commission payments arising out of alleged introduction agreement re construction of Kazakh energy plant.
• Advising UK administrators of off-shore wind company as to potential claims for breach of contract arising out of an asset purchase agreement with a Belgium company.
• Acting for Spanish company in solar energy arbitration in which solar plants were alleged to have been installed with defective solar panels.
• He was instructed (with Charles Gibson QC) on behalf of Defendant in Guerrero & 30 Ors v Monterrico Metals Plc, an international tort claim brought under Peruvian law for personal injuries sustained in the course of a protest against the mining activity of the subsidiary of an English parent-company.
• Instructed (with Charles Gibson QC) for the Defendant in Kessabo and others v African Barrick Gold Plc, an international tort claim against a mining company brought under Tanzanian law for personal injuries / alleged breaches of human rights. In the course of these instructions he advised on conflicts of law, issues of parent company liability for acts of subsidiaries, Act of State doctrine / State Immunity, freezing injunctions, anti-suit injunctions and issues of confidentiality.