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.
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.
Professor Christian Tams will be speaking at Paris Arbitration Week as part of a panel brought together by Eversheds Sutherland on the topic of ‘Finding the State: Foreign Investment and Disputed Territories, State Succession and Military Conflicts’. Speaking alongside Professor Nicolas Angelet and Professor Alina Miron, the panel will be looking at the way in […]
The International Court of Justice is today holding a public hearing on the question of the Court’s jurisdiction in a case brought to confirm the international boundary between Guyana and Venezuela as determined by an 1899 arbitral award whose validity Venezuela has challenged. Professor Philippe Sands QC and Edward Craven are representing Guyana. In light […]