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.
High Court decides applicable law in claim against UK Government concerning claimant detained in CIA ‘black sites’
Husayn (Zubaydah) v The Foreign And Commonwealth Office & Ors  EWHC 331 (QB)
The claimant is suing for damages for alleged torts committed by the UK Government. A declaration under s.6 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 that these were proceedings where there could be closed material was made by consent. The claimant is held by the United States as a detainee in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He […]
Supreme Court decides that section 2(3) Criminal Justice Act 1987 cannot require foreigner to produce material held overseas
R (on the application of KBR, Inc) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office  UKSC 2
KBR Inc is a parent company incorporated in the United States of America. KBR Inc does not have a fixed place of business in the UK, but it does have UK subsidiaries, including Kellogg Brown & Root Ltd (“KBR Ltd”). The Serious Fraud Office commenced a criminal investigation into, amongst others, KBR Ltd, concerning suspected […]
United States Of America v Assange  EW Misc 1 (MagC)
A UK judge has ruled that the Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, cannot be extradited to the United States of America to face charges of espionage, following concerns over his mental health and risk of suicide. Prosecutors in the USA accused Assange of helping US defence analyst Chelsea Manning breach the US Espionage Act, and of […]
Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (No. 2) (Application no. 14305/17)
This case in the European Court of Human Rights concerned the arrest and pre-trial detention of Mr Selahattin Demirtaş, who at the time of the events was one of the co-chairs of the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), a left-wing pro-Kurdish political party, and member of the Turkish National Assembly. In its judgment, the Grand Chamber […]
YD (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 1683
This is an appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dated 21 November 2017, dismissing an appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal. That tribunal had dismissed the appellant’s appeal against a decision of the respondent of 13 October 2015 refusing him leave to remain in the United Kingdom. […]