Matrix Chambers is a group of independent and specialist barristers, academics and foreign lawyers who work across a wide range of areas of law. With offices in London, Geneva and Brussels, our members have extensive experience internationally having worked in over 100 countries across 19 different practice areas. Owing to Matrix’s multi-disciplinary practice and standard of excellence, we are uniquely positioned to deal with complex legal issues, particularly where they overlap multiple areas of law.
Our clients include multinational corporations, law firms, banks, directors, regulators, professional bodies, foreign Governments, newspapers and media outlets, in the UK and internationally.
- Matrix members are experts in their field and their services include:
- Advising on legal strategy to guide your actions in legal disputes.
- Legal advice on the issues in your case, or advice as to the strength of your case as a whole.
- Representing you in a dispute resolution forum, whether in an arbitration (either acting for you
or acting as an arbitrator), a tribunal, a mediation or in court.
- Carrying out investigations, inquiries and audits of company policies, particularly in regard to
corporate social responsibility and checking compliance with human rights obligations.
What is the difference between a solicitor and a barrister?
In the UK the legal profession is split into barristers and solicitors. Whilst there are many other services that they can provide, barristers are known for appearing in court. They are independent practitioners who are self-employed and provide their services personally. Barristers work in offices, known as chambers, in order to share support staff and facilities.
Barristers cannot generally be instructed by members of the public unless they are public access trained. Usually you would go to a solicitor about your case and then the solicitor will instruct a barrister when it is appropriate. For more information about instructing a barrister as a member of the public, please see here.
Karaqi v Public Prosecutor's Office Of The Athens' Court Of Appeal, Greece  EWHC 2650 (Admin)
This was an appeal brought by the Appellant against an order for his extradition to Greece. The Appellant was convicted of armed robberies in Greece in 1995 and sentenced to 13 years imprisonment. In 1996, the Appellant escaped from prison in Greece. He came to the UK in 1997 and used his own name to […]
Home Department permitted to provide material relating to alleged terrorist to US Government, under Mutual Legal Assistance
R (on the application of Elgizouli) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 2516 (Admin)
The Divisional Court has handed down a judgment in a case involving a challenge to a decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to provide material to the US Government, pursuant to a request for Mutual Legal Assistance (‘MLA’).
MLA is a method of cooperation between states for obtaining assistance in the investigation or prosecution of criminal offences. In this case, the requested material related to the alleged terrorist activities of the claimant’s son, Shafee El Sheikh.
The principal issues for determination were whether the decision to provide MLA was compatible with the Data Protection Act 2018 and whether the decision was irrational. In particular, the issue was whether it was strictly necessary and proportionate to transfer personal data to a third country in support of a foreign prosecution in circumstances in which the Crown Prosecution Service had decided that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute Mr El Sheikh in this jurisdiction.
Held: the Divisional Court refused permission to apply for judicial review. The Court considered that the prospect of a domestic prosecution was not relevant to the question of whether it was necessary and proportionate to transfer data to a third country, and that it was not arguably irrational for the Secretary of State to fail to have regard to such a prospect in deciding to provide MLA.
Latvia v Karpickovs
Mr Boris Karpickovs was the subject of an extradition request from the Republic of Latvia. In refusing extradition under s.13 of the Extradition Act 2003, the judge concluded that the extradition request was brought for the purpose of silencing Mr Karpickovs as a result of his work for both the Russian and Latvian intelligence services and he might accordingly be prejudiced at his trial. The Court further concluded that there was a real risk of Mr Karpickovs suffering a flagrant denial of justice contrary to article 6 ECHR, due to the incentive of individuals to interfere with the usual course of justice in his case and the long-standing and deep-rooted problems with corruption within the Latvian judicial system.
Mark Summers QC and James Stansfeld represented Mr Boris Karpickovs, who was the subject of an extradition request from the Republic of Latvia. In refusing extradition under s.13 of the Extradition Act 2003, DJ Baraitser concluded that the extradition request was brought for the purpose of silencing Mr Karpickovs as a result of his work […]
Begum v Maran  EWHC 1846 (QB)
This case involves the death of an employee whilst working on the demolition of a defunct oil tanker (“the vessel”) in the Zuma Enterprise Shipyard (“the yard”) in Chittagong (now Chattogram), Bangladesh. The deceased’s widow issued proceedings claiming damages for negligence under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 and the Fatal Accidents Act 1976; alternatively, under Bangladeshi law. The scope of the proceedings has subsequently been broadened inasmuch as draft Amended Particulars of Claim advance a cause of action in restitution: more precisely, unjust enrichment.
Held: The claimant has a real prospect of succeeding in relation to her claim in negligence, however her claim in unjust enrichment is unsustainable. The the claimant has a real prospect of establishing that her claim is governed by English law and that if Bangladeshi law were to apply to the claim in tort, it would be statute-barred.