Alongside his strong reputation in connection with directors' misfeasance claims arising in insolvency (see Company and Partnership below), Matthew has extensive experience of acting for insolvency office holders in respect of all aspects of administration and liquidation, as well as representing claimants and defendants in preference, transactions at an undervalue and other clawback proceedings. He is equally well regarded in the sphere of personal insolvency, frequently acting for office holders, bankrupts and those with interests arising out of individual voluntary arrangements.

Matthew has recently been involved in two high-profile and important matters concerning energy supply company insolvencies.

• In the first, Matthew acted for the office-holders of two failed suppliers who (with other office-holders) applied for directions in respect of multi-million pound proofs of debt lodged by Ofgem in respect of Renewable Obligations, and by various Suppliers of Last Resort (SoLRs) in respect of the costs of honouring customer credit balances. The decision of Zacaroli J (Croxen v Gas and Electric Markets Authority [2022] EWHC 2826 (Ch)) resolved complex questions of statutory construction concerning the renewables obligation scheme, and difficult issues arising from the application of restitutionary principles  to the claims of the SoLRs. 
• In the second, Matthew acted for British Gas in its opposition to the application by Bulb for the Court to appoint an effective time for the transfer of Bulb’s business to Octopus. The decision of Zacaroli J ([2022] EWHC 3105 (Ch)) considered for the first time the Court’s powers in respect of Energy Transfer Schemes under the Special Administration Regime applicable to energy supply companies. Issues considered included the need to take account of the potential for judicial review proceedings challenging the Secretary of State’s approval of the transfer in appointing an effective time.

Matthew enjoys a particularly strong reputation in the field of shareholder claims and proceedings involving directors' misfeasance. He is also frequently instructed in matters involving complex issues of corporate governance and the maintenance of capital.

In the context of shareholder claims, Matthew regularly acts for both petitioners and respondents in respect of unfair prejudice proceedings involving businesses ranging from supermarkets in Southall to multi-million pound biotechnology companies. As sole counsel he successfully defended an unfair prejudice petition and established misfeasance in a conjoined Part 7 claim in Re Haz International [2021] EWHC 1695 (Ch).  He also acted as sole counsel on behalf of one of the respondents in Re AMT Coffee Limited which involved an 11 day high court trial of allegations of excessive remuneration, wrongful failure to pay dividends and unauthorised loans, as well as various subsequent hearings to resolve novel remedial issues including the circumstances in which a minority discount should be applied ([2018] EWHC 1562 (Ch); [2019] EWHC 46 (Ch); [2019] EWHC 377 (Ch); [2019] EWHC 378 (Ch)).

Matthew is currently instructed in two substantial matters which are at the pre-action stage, one for potential petitioners and one for potential respondents, involving allegations of unfair prejudice in the context of capital raises and their dilutive effect on minority shareholders.

In terms of misfeasance claims, recent notable instructions include:

• Two substantial claims, currently at the pre-action stage, seeking to recover payments made by directors of companies which have now entered liquidation and alleged to have involved preferences/transactions at an undervalue/transactions defrauding creditors. Claims are also advanced on the basis that the defendant directors breached the creditor duty (as considered by the Supreme Court in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25). In one Matthew is advising the majority creditor. In the other he is advising an assignee of the joint liquidators’/company’s claims.
• Advising directors in respect of potential liabilities arising as a result of entering into historical tax avoidance schemes which were found to be ineffective many years later. The allegations advanced by the company's liquidators, including claims based on unlawful returns of capital and breaches of fiduciary duty, involve complex issues of causation, limitation and tax counterfactuals. 
• Successfully defending an alleged de facto/shadow director of the property investment membership company, Instant Access Properties Limited (IAP), in respect of liquidator claims seeking >£34m for alleged fraudulent trading and breach of fiduciary duty said to have arisen as a result of commission sharing arrangements between IAP and offshore entities (IAP v Rosser & Ors [2018] EWHC 756 (Ch); [2018] EWHC 1145 (Ch)).
• Acting as junior counsel (led by Philip Marshall KC) in the successful defence of the former Independent Directors of Carlyle Capital Corporation in Guernsey proceedings commenced by the company's liquidators seeking in excess of US$1bn for alleged misfeasance (Guernsey Judgment 38/2017 - 4 September 2017).
• Representing a number of directors and shareholders of Galasys Plc, a Jersey company, in connection with litigation in England, Jersey and Malaysia. The proceedings concerned the construction and scope of a relationship agreement entered into in connection with the company's listing on AIM, as well as the impact of the UK Corporate Governance Code, the company's articles and Jersey company law on the validity of certain resolutions concerning the composition of the board and delegation of its powers to certain committees. (Representation of Galasys plc [2017] JRC105)
• Acting as junior counsel (led by Philip Marshall KC) for the Isle of Man directors of Isis Investments Limited, a subsidiary of Kaupthing bank, in respect of claims alleging breaches of their duties of care and skill and fiduciary duties brought by the liquidators of Isis in the Chancery Division.
• Securing the discontinuance of high profile proceedings brought against an alleged shadow director in respect of allegations of fraudulent tax evasion and the misleading of HMRC.

Matthew has an established reputation in the civil fraud field. Often instructed without a leader, he is equally tenacious when assisting claimants recover fraudulently misappropriated monies as he is defending those who are mixed up in allegations of dishonest activity.

Cross-examinations conducted by Matthew have led to witnesses being found to be dishonest in a number of judgments. Matthew also has extensive experience of obtaining freezing, search and disclosure orders, as well as reinforcing relief such as passport orders and the first order requiring a respondent to a Norwich Pharmacal order to wear a tag and submit to a temporal and geographical curfew to enforce compliance.

Recent instructions of note include:

• Acting unled for an invoice financing business in respect of claims alleging that false invoices were tendered, and substantial amounts of finance exceeding £1.7m provided, as a result of dishonest representations. The case settled in mid-2022.
• Successfully opposing an appeal to Falk J against a judgment Matthew had obtained for a UAE national against an English solicitor and others in which Matthew’s client established a 50% beneficial ownership in certain commercial properties in London, and proved that the solicitor had defrauded him by seeking to place the entire legal and beneficial ownership in the name of a third party (Salfiti v Seedo [2022] EWHC 1712 (Ch)). The judge at first instance had commented in his judgment that the solicitor’s “carefully crafted witness statement” had been “comprehensively unpicked” in Matthew’s cross-examination.  On appeal Falk J upheld these findings as to dishonesty.   The case also featured the creative use of contractual indemnity principles and equitable tracing/accounting rules to enable Matthew’s client to obtain very favourable remedies, including a share in a valuable property acquired in breach of trust. 
• Successfully opposing an application to discharge a freezing order on the grounds that security had been tendered and/or that its operation was oppressive. This involved an exploration of underdeveloped principles concerning whether the Court could review the decision of a freezing party not to accept security and, if so, the criteria that applied. After persuading the Court on the strength of analogies with insolvency law that the offer of security was not one that any reasonable creditor could accept, and that the respondents’ evidence in support of their application had been materially inaccurate, the Court dismissed the application and awarded Matthew’s clients indemnity costs. 
• Persuading the Court to include a number of novel modifications to a freezing order at the return date hearing which had created unwarranted hardship for Matthew’s clients, primarily as a result of their bank refusing to permit any transactions to proceed without the claimant’s consent, contrary to the ordinary course of business exception within the order. The modifications spelt out the transactions that were permitted and expressly provided that the claimant’s consent was not required and could not be insisted upon, as well as broadening the protections enjoyed by banks and third parties served with the order.
• Defending proceedings concerning the ownership and operation of an English company which was the ultimate owner of a shopping centre in the Ukraine. The proceedings raised issues concerning the extent to which overseas criminal proceedings concerning fraudulent attempts to misappropriate the shopping centre may be relied upon by the Defendants in English civil proceedings.
• Acting for one of a number of defendants in respect of claims alleging that substantial loans with a value of US$37m were procured by fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit. In the course of a two day appeal hearing before the Chancellor, the defendants succeeded in demonstrating that the fraud claims were defectively pleaded. An order of the Chief Master setting aside permission to serve out of the jurisdiction was upheld on these and other grounds (Punjab National Bank v Srinivasan & Ors [2019] EWHC 3495 (Ch))
• Successfully defending a Jersey discretionary trust from tracing and Pauline claims advanced by Dubai Islamic Bank in the Royal Court of Jersey. The proceedings raised novel issues as to the extent to which Sharia law principles are capable of qualifying contractual and equitable rights and remedies as a matter of Jersey common law (DIB v Ridley [2017]JRC204).
• Acting (with Lance Ashworth KC) for a leading arts university in proceedings (now settled) claiming >£1m from a group of IT consultants who, among other things, are alleged to have persuaded it to purchase services from companies with whom they had undisclosed relationships by making fraudulent misrepresentations designed to engender fear, uncertainty and doubt in respect of the university's IT systems.
• Acting for the founder of a group of companies offering timeshare exit services, who was alleged to have induced its members to purchase travel vouchers as part of an exit package using fraudulent misrepresentations. The case raised complex issues as to the value of the timeshare exit services and vouchers, the misuse of confidential information and database rights, and the operation of exclusion and entire agreement clauses in consumer contracts.

Certain of Matthew's civil fraud matters have led to his involvement in related public law proceedings. These have included English judicial review proceedings (acting with Philip Marshall KC) raising novel issues concerning the duties of prosecuting authorities in respect of materials seized under search warrants (R (BES) v Preston Crown Court [2018] EWHC 1534 (Admin) and the scope of local authorities' powers to investigate and prosecute fraud (R (Qualter & Ors) v Preston Crown Court [2019] EWHC 2563 (Admin)).

Matthew also acted for individuals involved in a Guernsey investment fund who were unsuccessfully prosecuted and sought orders requiring the prosecuting authority to, among other things, correct historical public statements made about them and take further steps necessary for them to vindicate their reputations. The matter settled at the pre-action stage.

Matthew was a member of Sheikh Abdullah's counsel team in the long-running Alhamrani litigation in Jersey. He has subsequently been involved in a wide range of trust and probate disputes, involving allegations of breaches of duty in the context of investment decisions and the unravelling of tax planning structures with unintended tax consequences.

Matthew has also frequently advised upon, and appeared in the Family Division in connection with, a number of company, trust and insolvency issues that have arisen in the context of family law proceedings.

Matthew enjoys a strong reputation in the field of banking and financial services, frequently acting for borrowers and lenders in respect of high value, mutli-jurisdictional disputes involving very substantial sums. Alongside his role in PNB v Srinivasan (see Civil Fraud above), recent instructions including acting with Phlip Marshall QC for a high profile Middle Eastern group of companies defending proceedings alleging fraud, breach of trust and dishonest assistance spanning multiple jurisdictions.  

Cases in which Matthew is involved frequently raise difficult and complex questions of private international law. He has recently acted unled against leading and junior counsel in two multi-day High Court jurisdictional disputes, upholding an order dismissing permission to serve out in one (PNB v Srinivasan & Ors (see civil fraud above) and successfully resisting a set aside application in the other (Ridley v Dubai Islamic Bank [2020] EWHC 1213 (Comm)).