Matthew Waszak

“Matthew Waszak is absolutely phenomenal.” – Chambers & Partners

“Utterly brilliant. Matthew knows costs inside-out and gives clear, practical and strategically savvy advice.” – Legal 500

“Matthew Waszak is a very persuasive advocate. He fights hard for his clients, is well prepared and makes succinct points.” – Legal 500

Matt is currently described as “one of a few leading junior counsel in relation to costs work” (Legal 500). He has a very busy costs practice, typically acting for major solicitors’ firms and defendant insurers. He is regularly instructed in cases with market-wide significance and in test cases, as well as being frequently brought into major litigation, including commercial and group litigation, to advise on or argue specific costs issues. He also acts as a costs specialist in respect of costs budgeting or costs budget variations, the application of Part 36 and in applications for wasted costs orders and non-party costs orders.

Examples of his work include:

• Acting for the Defendants (led by Nicholas Bacon KC) in substantial detailed assessment proceedings following the settlement of 900 civil claims for the global sum of £150m in the Grenfell Tower Fire Litigation.
• Acting for the Ford Defendants (led by Nicola Greaney KC, 39 Essex) on costs issues in the Pan-Nox-Emissions Litigation, said to be the largest collection of group claims ever brought in the High Court: Pan NOx Emissions Litigations [2024] EWHC 1728 (KB).
• Acting for Tata Steel UK Ltd in multi-million pound detailed assessment proceedings in the British Steel Coke Oven Workers Litigation, a GLO group action pursued on behalf of over 200 claimants, before the Senior Costs Judge: Hutson & Others v Tata Steel UK Ltd [2025] EWHC 1594 (SCCO). See also: Hutson & Others v Tata Steel UK Ltd [2022] EWHC 3658 (KB).
• Acting with Andrew Fulton KC and Mark Tushingham (20 Essex Street) in detailed assessment proceedings in the Supreme Court following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Maduro Board of the Central Bank of Venezuela v Guaidó Board of the Central Bank of Venezuela [2021] UKSC 57, in the Venezuelan Gold Litigation.
• Acting for SKAT, the Danish Customs and Tax Administration (with Charles Graham KC and KV Krishnarparasad) in respect of costs issues following the Court of Appeal’s judgment in SKAT v MCML Ltd (previously ED&F Man Capital Markets Ltd) [2024] EWCA 371.
• Advising (led by Roger Mallalieu KC) on costs issues relating to substantial restructuring proceedings brought in the Business and Property Courts.
• Ten-day detailed assessment following proceedings in the Chancery Division of the High Court in Frenkel v Lyampert & Ors [2017] EWHC 2223 (Ch) and Frenkel v (1) Lyampert (2) LA Micro Group (UK) Limited [2017] EWHC 3121 (Ch).
• Acting for Paul Bridgen (led by Stephen Auld KC, One Essex Court) in respect of costs issues following the widely-publicised unfair prejudice petitions brought by Andrew Bridgen (former MP) in the Business and Property Courts: Andrew Bridgen v Paul Bridgen & Ors [2023] EWHC 3232 (Ch).
• Instructed in respect of costs issues in the Seroxat Litigation, a group action brought against GlaxoSmithKline arising from the manufacture of the anti-depressant medicine, Seroxat.
• Cross v (1) Robsinon (2) Aviva Insurance Ltd: Instructed by the respondent (led by Benjamin Williams KC) on an appeal (compromised shortly before the hearing) arising from a Costs Judge’s strike out/dismissal of unparticularised points of dispute in relation to the electronic bill of costs.
• Instructed by the MOD in relation to relation to a test case in Northern Ireland concerning the recovery of Counsel’s fees in a series of legacy claims.
• Instructed by the receiving party in detailed assessment proceedings following the trademark dispute in Combe International LLC v Dr August Wolff GMCH & Ors [2021] EWHC 3347.  
• R v Luckhurst [2022] 1 WLR 3818: acted for the paying party in the detailed assessment of costs in the Supreme Court, involving consideration of the status of the guideline fees under Supreme Court Practice Direction 13.
• Lacoste v Marks and Spencer (High Court, Chancery Division): acted for Marks and Spencer in respect of costs issues in a trademark infringement claim in the Chancery Division of the High Court.
• AKC v Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust [2022] Costs LR 1095: Junior Counsel for the respondent in Court of Appeal case concerning the CPR requirements of bills of costs.
• Nema v Kirkland[2019] EWHC B15 (Costs): Acted for the successful defendant in case concerning the appropriate mechanism for resolving disputes in relation to fixed recoverable costs (subsequently endorsed by the Court of Appeal in Doyle v M&D Foundations and Building Services Ltd [2022] 4 WLR 93). 
• Mitchell v Gilling-Smith [2017] EWHC B18 (Costs): acted for the successful claimant in challenge to the reasonableness and proportionality of an ATE premium.
• Pollard v University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust [2017] 1 Costs 45: acted for the successful appellant in cases concerning a challenges to the reasonableness and proportionality of an ATE premium (cited with approval and central to the Court of Appeal’s decision in West v Stockport [2019] 1 WLR 6157).