Matthew Parker KC

Matthew is ranked as a leading silk in this field. He is described as a “fantastic advocate” who is “all over the details, very punchy and a safe pair of hands” (Chambers & Partners, 2024). He is also praised for being “Very straightforward, user friendly and decisive in his advice” (Chambers & Partners, 2024).

He has a broad commercial practice and has been instructed in disputes across a wide range of industry sectors – banking and finance, international trade, construction, IT and telecoms, insurance, oil and gas, pharmaceuticals, art and auction sales, retail and manufacturing. He regularly appears in the Business and Property Courts, in various offshore jurisdictions and in international arbitrations.

His cases in this area include:

Obaid v RLS Solicitors Ltd (t/a RLS Law) [2024] EWHC 1899 (Ch): on the proper construction of a settlement agreement between two sets of parties to commercial proceedings, there was no release of claims by one party against its own former solicitors.

Tonstate Group Ltd v Wojakowski [2024] EWHC 1196 (Ch): dispute concerning representation by solicitors in an application for Bankers Trust relief.

McCarthy v Proctor [2024] EWHC 684 (Ch): jurisdictional dispute in complex commercial proceedings relating to property in Spain and previous UK proceedings.

Vegesentials v The Shanghai Commercial & Savings Bank Ltd [2024] EWHC 7 (Ch), recovering over £5m by way of lost profits resulting from reliance on a fraudulent proof of funds letter.

Eteboxagu AB v Cycle Pharmaceuticals Ltd [2023] EWHC 462 (Comm), regarding the proper construction of a pharmaceutical royalty agreement.

Fenchurch Advisory Partners LLP v AA Ltd [2023] EWHC 108 (Comm), defending a claim for financial service advisory fees of over £5m.

GPP Big Field LLP v Solar EPC Solutions SL [2018] EWHC 2866 (Comm), acting for investors in five solar plants seeking recovery of sums due under EPC contracts for their construction.

Unite the Union v Liverpool Victoria Banking Services Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 285: Claim arising out of affinity scheme agreements between certain trade unions and an insurance and banking group, the case centred around the proper interpretation of commission provisions.

Central Bank of Ecuador v Conticorp (Bahamas) (Rev 4) [2015] UKPC 11, [2015] BUS LR D7: Matthew acted for the Central Bank of Ecuador (led by Richard Salter QC) in successfully obtaining judgment against the former owners of an Ecuadorian bank for over US$500 million, including compound interest. Following a three month trial at first instance, the Privy Council overturned the findings of the courts below and held that the defendants had dishonestly stripped the bank of its assets shortly before it was taken into public ownership.

Primary Group (UK) Ltd v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc [2014] EWHC 1082 (Ch), [2014] 2 All ER (Comm) 1121, [2014] RPC 26: Matthew acted for one of the Defendants in successfully resisting claims for breach of confidence in relation to a report prepared for the claimant insurance company at the request of its bankers. The claims for over £1.5m were dismissed with indemnity costs.

Alegro Capital LLP v Allproperty Media PTE Ltd [2013] EWHC 3376 (QB): successfully acting as sole advocate at trial in a claim for a £630,000 success fee under an agreement for the provision of advice in connection with a proposed capital raise.

NML Capital Ltd v Chapman Freeborn Holdings Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 589: Appeared in the Court of Appeal on an appeal concerning the scope of the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction in the context of enforcing judgment debts.

Lawlor v Sandvik Mining & Construction [2013] EWCA Civ 365, [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 98: Appeared for the defendant at trial and in the Court of Appeal in a claim under the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993. The court determined the applicable law of the agency agreement under the Rome Convention 1980.

Porton Capital v 3M [2011] EWHC 2895 (Comm): Appeared in a six week Commercial Court trial in a claim under the ‘earn out’ provisions of a share purchase agreement relating to the sale of a medical device for detecting the superbug MRSA.

DSG v Universal Media Corporation [2011] EWHC 1116 (Comm): Acted for the claimant in a claim arising out of the supply of televisions by a Slovakian manufacturer to a UK-based retailer.

Innovatis v Ejder Group [2010] EWHC 1850 (Ch): Appeared as sole advocate at trial in a claim arising out of a “repo” agreement for the sale and repurchase of a US$7m Lehman Brothers note, allegedly concluded by the defendant as agent for the owner of the note.

Redmayne Bentley v Isaacs [2010] EWHC 1504 (Comm): Appeared as sole advocate at trial in a claim for unpaid stockbroking fees. The case raised issues as to the existence of an advisory relationship, with particular reference to the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive 2004/39/EC (MiFID) and COBS.

Gulf International Bank v Al Ittefaq Steel Products [2010] EWHC 2601 (QB): Appeared for the defendant on an unusual application seeking additional time to pay a substantial judgment debt under CPR Rule 14.10.

Pell Frischmann v Bow Valley Energy Inc [2009] UKPC 45; [2010] Bus LR 73: Acting for the defendants in claims arising out of an oil & gas joint venture in the Persian gulf. Appeared in an eight week trial in the Jersey Royal Court and on subsequent appeals to Court of Appeal and Privy Council.

M&J Polymers v Imerys [2008] EWHC 344 (Comm), [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 541: Claim arising out of a three-year chemical supply contract, raising issues of “fitness for purpose” and whether a “take or pay” provision was unenforceable as a penalty clause. Appearing as sole advocate at trial, Matthew successfully obtained judgment for over £6m including interest.

FFSB Ltd v Seward & Kissel LLP [2007] UKPC 16: Acted for the former administrators of a failed Bahamian investment fund in contribution proceedings against a New York law firm; appearing on a jurisdictional challenge in the Bahamas High Court and on appeal up to the Privy Counsel.

Bartercard v Nabarro Wells [2007] EWHC 2687 (Comm): Acting for the Nominated Advisor (Nomad) to an AIM-listed company in an action arising out of its appointment and resignation.

Morin v Bonhams & Brooks [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 702 (CA): Claim arising out of the sale at auction in Monaco of a 1959 Ferrari 410 Superamerica, appearing on a jurisdictional challenge in the Commercial Court and Court of Appeal.

Matthew is ranked as a leading silk in this field (having previously been in the top tier of juniors in this field). He is described as “an excellent advocate – balancing strong legal rigour with personable skills” who “achieves results while remaining a pleasure for solicitors and clients to work with” (Legal 500, 2024). He is also noted for being “tenacious in cross-examination”, “very straightforward in his approach” and “User-friendly, clear and decisive in his advice” (Chambers & Partners, 2024).

He has extensive experience acting for and against retail and investment banks in disputes involving all aspects of domestic and international banking operations and has appeared in claims concerning investment advice, the conduct of investment funds, restitutionary claims, endowment policies. He also regularly advises in relation to banking transactions and payment instruments, cheques, bills of exchange, guarantees and mortgages.

Matthew’s cases in this area include the following:

Vegesentials v The Shanghai Commercial & Savings Bank Ltd [2024] EWHC 7 (Ch), recovering over £5m by way of lost profits resulting from reliance on a fraudulent proof of funds letter.

Fenchurch Advisory Partners LLP v AA Ltd [2023] EWHC 108 (Comm), defending a claim for financial service advisory fees of over £5m.

Central Bank of Ecuador v Conticorp (Bahamas) (Rev 4) [2015] UKPC 11, [2015] BUS LR D7: Matthew acted for the Central Bank of Ecuador (led by Richard Salter QC) in successfully obtaining judgment against the former owners of an Ecuadorian bank for over US$500 million, including compound interest. Following a three month trial at first instance, the Privy Council overturned the findings of the courts below and held that the defendants had dishonestly stripped the bank of its assets shortly before it was taken into public ownership.

Freehold Estates Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc [2014] EWHC 4621 (Comm): Acting for the Claimant in claims for alleged mis-selling in relation to some 27 swap transactions and successfully resisting orders for costs following the acceptance of offers of redress made in the context of the FCA review.

BHP Billiton v Pioneer Metals (Commercial Court): Acted in a claim under a guarantee where the liability of the principal debtor under a number of forward freight agreements was disputed on various grounds. Settled shortly before trial in December 2011.

Confezioni Moda v Rozental (QB): Claim under various cheques raising issues as to the sufficiency of consideration under s.27 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882.

Innovatis v Ejder Group [2010] EWHC 1850 (Ch): Appeared for the defendant at trial in a claim arising out of a “repo” agreement for the sale and repurchase of a US$7m Lehman Brothers note, allegedly concluded by the defendant as agent for the owner of the note.

Redmayne Bentley v Isaacs [2010] EWHC 1504 (Comm): Appeared for the claimant at trial in a claim for unpaid stockbroking fees. The case raised issues as to the existence of an advisory relationship, with particular reference to the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive 2004/39/EC (MiFID) and COBS.

FFSB Ltd v Seward & Kissel LLP [2007] UKPC 16: Acted for the former administrators of a failed Bahamian investment fund in contribution proceedings against a New York law firm; appearing on a jurisdictional challenge in the Bahamas High Court and on appeal up to the Privy Counsel.

Bartercard v Nabarro Wells [2007] EWHC 2687 (Comm): Acting for the Nominated Advisor (Nomad) to an AIM-listed company in an action arising out of its appointment and resignation.

Oystertec plc v Yorkshire Bank plc [2004] EWHC 1582 (Ch), [2006] 1 BCLC 491, [2005] BPIR 381: Application concerning a bank’s entitlement to set off under loan documents.

Matthew is ranked as a leading silk in this field (having previously been in the top tier of juniors in this field). He is described as “Very intelligent and a real strategic thinker” (Legal 500, 2024) as well as “collaborative, constructive and a great team player” (Chambers & Partners, 2024). Commentators also note that he is “client-friendly” and “very good on his feet” and that he “always gets across the big picture together with the detail of a case” (Chambers & Partners, 2024).

He has very extensive experience of major fraud claims, including claims for equitable relief, asset-tracing and injunctive relief.

His cases in this area include:

Vegesentials v The Shanghai Commercial & Savings Bank Ltd [2024] EWHC 7 (Ch), recovering over £5m by way of lost profits resulting from reliance on a fraudulent proof of funds letter.

Al Saud v Gibbs [2022] EWHC 706 (Comm), [2022] 1 WLR 3082, acting for the defendant on numerous interlocutory applications in a claim for the return of $25m regarding the operation of a freezing injunction, requests for further information and an application for summary judgment.

Tatneft v Bogolyubov [2021] WLR 1612, He acted for one of the defendants in a US$200m claim arising out of the alleged siphoning of funds from a Ukrainian refinery.

Privatbank v Kolomoisky [2020] Ch 783, a US$2 billion claim against the former owners of a Ukrainian bank.

Central Bank of Ecuador v Conticorp (Bahamas) (Rev 4) [2015] UKPC 11, [2015] BUS LR D7: Matthew acted for the Central Bank of Ecuador (led by Richard Salter QC) in successfully obtaining judgment against the former owners of an Ecuadorian bank for over US$500 million, including compound interest. Following a three month trial at first instance, the Privy Council overturned the findings of the courts below and held that the defendants had dishonestly stripped the bank of its assets shortly before it was taken into public ownership.

Aberdeen Global v Satyam Computer Services (Commercial Court): A fraud claim brought by various investment funds relating to the purchase of shares in the defendant company, described in the press as the “Enron of India”. The action settled shortly after a substantial jurisdiction hearing in October 2012.

Wood v Mistry [2012] EWHC 1899 (Ch), [2012] Bus LR 1607: Acting for the applicants in disqualification proceedings against a liquidator under the CDDA 1986. The court made a 12 year disqualification order based on the defendant’s fraudulent conduct.

Duke of Norfolk v Hibbert [2009] EWHC 2855 (QB), [2010] PNLR 11: Acting for the defendant in a claim for dishonest assistance arising out of payment made by mistake.

Pell Frischmann v Bow Valley Energy Inc [2009] UKPC 45; [2010] Bus LR 73: Acting for the defendants in claims arising out of an oil & gas joint venture in the Persian gulf.. Matthew appeared for the defendant in the seven week trial before the Jersey Royal Court and in the Privy Council.

Matthew has consistently been highly ranked in this area and is described as a “tough, forthright and plain-speaking advocate “, a “ferocious cross-examiner” and a “very tough opponent”, his clients say that he is a “clear, forceful advocate with a careful eye for detail” who “never allows the wood to be lost for the trees” (Legal 500 2015; Chambers & Partners 2015; Who’s Who Legal 2015). Previously , he has been described as a “first-class intellect”, “a very good advocate” and as “a superb barrister”, whose key traits are “laudable attention to detail, diligent work ethic and thorough preparation” and who is “always on the money; provides a thorough analysis and clear and straightforward advice” (Legal 500 2012-15; Chambers & Partners 2012-13). Matthew is regularly instructed in a wide range of professional negligence claims, most frequently in claims involving solicitors, accountants, auctioneers, architects and civil engineers.

His cases in this area include:

Acting for the claimants in an action against their former solicitors arising out of the sale of their company to a private equity house. The claimants claimed that they received negligent advice in relation to the terms of an Intercreditor Deed which was to govern their rights to receive payment under vendor loan notes to be issued by the acquisition vehicle.

Acting for the defendant solicitors in a claim brought by the former operator of a litigation funding scheme. The defendant drafted various standard form loan documents, which are alleged not to have been compliant with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and related regulations.

Acted for the claimants in an action against a firm of accountants. The defendant firm had audited a detailed financial model, which had been prepared in connection with a successful bid for a 25-year public-private partnership venture. The defendant was alleged to have failed to identify an error in the model, resulting in loss and damage of over £20m.

Endemol v ELP (Commercial Court): Acting for a television production company pursuing claims in professional negligence relating to the design and construction of a large swimming pool used in filming the TV programme “101 Ways to Leave a Gameshow”.

FFSB Ltd v Seward & Kissel LLP [2007] UKPC 16: Solicitors’ negligence claim arising out of the collapse of a mutual fund. Appeared in all courts up to the Privy Council on an application challenging jurisdiction of the Bahamian Courts to determine a contribution claim.

Hicks v Russell Jones & Walker [2007] EWHC 940 (Ch): Acting for the defendant solicitors in a claim arising out of failed court proceedings, both at trial and on subsequent applications to the Court of Appeal.

Morin v Bonhams & Brooks [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 702 (CA): Acting for the defendant auction house in a claim for negligent misstatement arising out of the sale of a Ferrari at auction in Monaco.

Matthew is rated as a leading junior in this field by Chambers & Partners and has experience of acting in a wide range of energy-related disputes, including oil and gas litigation and cases concerning the domestic supply of gas and electricity.

His cases in this area include:

Acting for a Kazakh oil company in a dispute arising out of the operation of the quality bank procedures in a transnational oil pipeline. The case involves total claims of around US$10m and a final LCIA arbitration hearing is scheduled for February 2016.

Acted for the claimant oil company in LCIA arbitration proceedings arising out of the cancellation of a Production Sharing Agreement (PSC) for the development and production of an on-shore oil field in Europe. The claimant claimed specific performance, alternatively damages of over US$100m. Among the issues raised were the applicability of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts 2010 and the valuation of prospective production rights. Matthew appeared as sole counsel at the final hearing in February 2013.

Acted for a major UK energy supplier in LCIA arbitration proceedings arising out of a commercial agreement for the supply of electricity. The claimant claimed that it had overpaid around £2 million for electricity supplied as a result of the application of the incorrect “correction factor” under the Gas (Calculation of Thermal Energy) Regulations 1996. Settled in March 2013.

Acted for the defendant oil company in LCIA arbitration proceedings arising out of the cancellation of a Joint Bidding Agreement (JBA) for the development of a gas field in the Middle East. The claimant claimed that the JBA had been wrongfully repudiated and sought damages of over US$1.5 million. Settled in February 2013.

Advising a major UK energy supplier on the validity of “take or pay” provisions in its standard form gas and electricity supply contracts.

Matthew has considerable experience in acting in claims involving information technology and telecommunications. He has acted in a range of disputes, including cases involving software development, billing operations, artificial inflation of traffic.

His cases in this area include:

Advising a satellite broadcasting company in relation to various contracts for the supply of transponders on a satellite, raising in particular questions of force majeure and the effect of various exclusion clauses.

Acting for EDS in its well-publicised dispute with Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs over the software development for the New Tax Credits system.

Airtours v Electronic Data Systems Limited (Technology and Construction Court), a substantial dispute concerning the development of a holiday-booking software system.

Matthew is recognised as a leading junior in this field and is rated in the most recent directories as “An excellent barrister whose advice is confident and commercial” (Legal 500 2015). He has also been described as a “good punchy junior” with a “good analytical approach” and as a “superb and flawless barrister” (Legal 500 2011-15). He regularly appears in domestic and international arbitration proceedings and in enforcement and other arbitration applications. He has experience of ICC, LCIA, UNCITRAL and various ad hoc arbitrations.

His cases in this area include:

Acting for a Kazakh oil company in a dispute arising out of the operation of the quality bank procedures in a transnational oil pipeline. The case involves total claims of around US$10m and a final LCIA arbitration hearing is scheduled for February 2016.

Acting for a biscuit manufacturer in ICC arbitration proceedings with its Canadian distributor. The case arises out of the expiry of a distributorship agreement and includes claims in respect of the quality of goods and for breach of confidence.

Acted for the claimant oil company in LCIA arbitration proceedings arising out of the cancellation of a Production Sharing Agreement (PSC) for the development and production of an on-shore oil field in Europe. The claimant claimed specific performance, alternatively damages of over US$100m. Among the issues raised were the applicability of the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts 2010 and the valuation of prospective production rights. Matthew appeared as sole counsel at the final hearing in February 2013.

Acted for a major UK energy supplier in LCIA arbitration proceedings arising out of a commercial agreement for the supply of electricity. The claimant claimed that it had overpaid around £2 million for electricity supplied as a result of the application of the incorrect “correction factor” under the Gas (Calculation of Thermal Energy) Regulations 1996. Settled in March 2013.

Acted for the defendant oil company in LCIA arbitration proceedings arising out of the cancellation of a Joint Bidding Agreement (JBA) for the development of a gas field in the Middle East. The claimant claimed that the JBA had been wrongfully repudiated and sought damages of over US$1.5 million. Settled in February 2013.

Acted in ad hoc proceedings arising out of an agreement for the sale of a pig rearing business. The claim concerned whether the seller’s refusal to consent to a further sale of the business was being unreasonably withheld. Award issued in late 2010.

Republic of Kazakhstan v Istil Group Inc [2007] EWHC 2729 (Comm), [2008] Bus LR 37: anti-arbitration injunction restraining further conduct of LCIA arbitration proceedings.

Republic of Kazakhstan v Istil Group Inc [2007] EWCA Civ 47, [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 548: s.67(4) of the Arbitration Act 1996 not inconsistent with Art 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Republic of Kazakhstan v Istil Group Inc [2006] EWHC 448 (Comm), [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 307: s.67 application to set aside $6m LCIA arbitration award for lack of jurisdiction.

Winner of the award for “Offshore Barrister of the Year” in 2015 (Lawyer Monthly Awards), Matthew has been described as “personable and charming” and a “very down-to-earth and straight-talking barrister”, who “assimilates information extremely quickly” and “produces first-rate drafting” (Chambers & Partners 2013-15). He has acted in litigation in a range of offshore jurisdictions, including Jersey, Guernsey, the Cayman Islands, The Bahamas, the British Virgin Islands and Anguilla and has been called to the Bars of the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands. Most recently, Matthew was instructed on a 7-week trial in Guernsey arising out of a failed property development venture, which settled shortly before the start of trial.

Many of his cases have arisen out of the use of offshore financial institutions, particularly offshore investment funds. Three of his cases have been to the Privy Council (FFSB Ltd v Seward & Kissel LLP [2007] UKPC 16; Conticorp v Central Bank of Ecuador [2015] UKPC 11; Pell Frischmann v Bow Valley [2009] UKPC 45; [2010] Bus LR 73).