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.

“Extremely user friendly and very much works in partnership with the instructing solicitor.” Legal 500, 2019

“Stands out for his easy-going approach, efficient turnaround of quality work and excellent sense of humour.” “He impresses with his enthusiasm and willingness to go the extra mile.”  Chambers & Partners, 2019

Recent experiences have focused on the areas addressed in the drop-down headings below.

Matthew is ranked in the Legal 500 2019 as a leading junior in company law, which comments that “He is an eloquent advocate and is fierce in cross examination.”

He 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.
• Various claims involving allegations of directors’ misfeasance; diversion of business opportunities and revenues, false accounting, dishonest assistance & knowing receipt.
• 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.
• 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 also acted on concurrent employment tribunal proceedings.

Matthew is well used to the complexities and evidential challenges of fraud claims, and has a particular interest and experience in claims in conspiracy and the economic torts more generally.  His first experience as sole trial counsel in the High Court was successfully defending Mr Little against claims of fraudulent misrepresentation, dishonest assistance and knowing receipt in Gabriel v Little & Ors 15 ITELR  387, [2013] 1 BCLC 750 (first instance); [2013] EWCA Civ 1513, 16 ITELR 567 (CoA). He is experienced in obtaining and resisting the forms of interim relief commonly associated with claims in fraud, including freezing injunctions. Examples of recent experience include:

• Palmer Birch v Lloyd & Anr [2018] 4 WLR 164; [2018] 180 ConLR 50; [2018] BLR 722 – successfully representing claimant in trial of economic tort claims (procuring breach of contract, unlawful means conspiracy). A significant decision in which the economic torts were used to overcome the effects of a company insolvency, involving consideration of directors’ duties and the corporate veil. 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).
• Advising and acting for ultimate beneficial owner of a UK company seeking recovery of significant sums lost to fraud. Appointment of receiver under section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.
• Acting (with Justin Fenwick QC) for high net worth individual, resisting application for worldwide freezing order (Commercial Court, 2018).
• Advising owner of shipping companies as to potential high value conspiracy claim arising out of company insolvency allegedly orchestrated by major UK bank.
• Advising South African owned state entity as to UK bribery law.
• Jackson v Thompsons Solicitors & Ors [2015] EWHC 218 (QB) (led by Patrick Green QC) – six week High Court trial in unlawful means conspiracy, procuring a breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation claim relating to a group litigation order. Acted in 2016 application to Court of Appeal (Jackson v Thompsons & Others [2016] EWCA Civ 138)).

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.
• 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.
• Acting in a number of Consumer Protection Act and negligence claims brought against manufacturers of household appliances alleged to have caused house fires.

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:

• Advising a Kazakh subsidiary of a UK Plc in potential claim against insurance brokers arising out of voiding of insurance cover in respect of a catastrophic loss. Interesting questions of foreign law.
• Acting in claim against solicitors in relation to a series of property transfers undertaken without proper client instructions or advice.
• Defending solicitors in relation to alleged negligent conduct of employment tribunal proceedings.
• 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 claim against construction professionals arising out of negligently conducted works.

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.