Matthew Finn

• ICE v EPIC [2018] T.C.L.R. 3 – Brought in at the appeal stage and successfully resisted the Claimant’s appeal against judgment arising out of a preliminary issue hearing on limitation.
• For the Defendant, as sole Counsel, in respect of a multi-million-pound adjudication claim concerned with the purported termination of a food production facility in the UK.
• Biffa West Sussex Limited v MW High Tech Projects UK Limited (TCC) – For the claimant (with Jonathan Lee QC) in proceedings relating to the design and construction of a mechanical biological treatment plant in West Sussex.
• Kitt v The Laundry Building Ltd [2014] EWHC 4250 (TCC) – For the Claimant, as sole Counsel, in a successful application for summary judgment in respect of unpaid adjudicator’s fees and expenses in the TCC.
• For the Defendant contractor, as sole Counsel, in a high-value dispute concerning allegations of defective design in relation to an offshore wind farm on the east coast of England.
• Rendlesham Estates Plc v Barr Limited (TCC) – For the Claimant (with Jonathan Selby QC) in proceedings relating to the development of 120 apartments in Leeds city centre, alleged to be unfit for habitation for the purposes of the Defective Premises Act 1972.

Amongst other matters, Matthew has also recently advised in relation to:

• Appropriate wording for incorporation into a contractual indemnity, relating to ongoing construction works.
• Limitation and substantive merits in a claim concerning large-scale construction works.
• The effectiveness of a pay less notice.
• Termination of a JCT standard form contract.
• Adjudication enforcement proceedings.

• For the claimant, as sole counsel, in respect of a $15m international arbitration (LCIA) arising in the energy sector.
• For the Claimant, as sole Counsel, in respect of a multi-million-pound High Court claim concerning a sub-sea cabling manufacturing facility producing umbilicals for energy projects in Asia Pacific, Africa and the Middle East.
• Junior Counsel in respect of a 10-day, multi-million-pound arbitration concerned with the purported termination of a commercial agreement relating to a power plant in Europe.
• A £250m termination dispute in relation to a £4bn energy PFI contract.
• Biffa West Sussex Limited v MW High Tech Projects UK Limited (TCC) – For the claimant (with Jonathan Lee QC) in proceedings relating to the design and construction of a mechanical biological facility.
• For the Defendant contractor, as sole Counsel, in a high-value dispute concerning allegations of defective design in relation to an offshore wind farm on the east coast of England.
• Advice on a prospective claim for loss of UK Government Feed-in Tariff payments for photovoltaic energy generation.

• For the proposed Claimant, as sole Counsel, in a conflict of laws dispute regarding the misappropriation of funds by a Spanish company operating in Norway and Monaco.
• For the Claimant business owner, as sole Counsel, in proceedings brought under the Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930.
• NATS (Services) Limited v Gatwick Airport Limited (TCC) – For the Claimant (with Sarah Hannaford QC and Calum Lamont) in public procurement proceedings relating to the tendering process for air navigation services at Gatwick Airport.
• For the Claimant, as sole Counsel, in commercial claim arising out of the assignment of a £300,000 debt in a high-profile football club.
• For the Claimant building association, as sole Counsel, in relation to a million-pound claim arising out of a personal deed of indemnity.
• For the Defendant football club, as sole Counsel, in a claim relating to unpaid agency fees arising from the transfer of a well-known footballer.
• For the Claimant consultant, as sole Counsel, in a dispute concerned with professional consultancy services provided in connection with the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
• For the Claimant professional footballer, as sole Counsel, in a claim arising from his club’s failure to insure its players against injury.

Amongst other matters, Matthew has also recently advised clients in relation to:

• Agency fees in a sports context
• A potential restitutionary claim arising from the sale of a pharmaceutical plant and associated land
• Product liability insurance
• The Water Industry Act 1991
• The Football Spectators Act 1989

• For the Claimant business owner, as sole Counsel, in a dispute concerning solicitors’ failure to instigate legal proceedings within a contractually mandated limitation period.
• For the Defendant architect, as sole Counsel, in proceedings concerning professional negligence in the provision of architectural services.
• For the Claimant employer, as sole Counsel, in a dispute concerned with limitation issues in a claim arising out of the provision of architectural services.

Matthew has recently been instructed in a series of PFI disputes. Of those, the largest had a contract value of over £4bn and the dispute value to the local authority was over £250m. That case was principally concerned with the local authority’s right to terminate the contract for Contractor Default. In the course of the dispute, issues included (but were not limited to):

• The interrelationship between Works Delivery Plans and Service Delivery Plans.
• Failures to report upon Performance Failures and the contractual significance thereof.
• The proper operation of the Paymech, including the possibility of making retrospective Performance Deductions.
• The proper accrual of Performance Points to a Performance Bank and the employer’s discretion in relation thereto.
• The legal status and effect of completion and acceptance certificates.
• The relative financial outturns between authority voluntary termination on the one hand and contractor default termination on the other.
• Allegations of promissory estoppel, said to preclude the authority from relying upon its strict contractual rights.

In addition, Matthew has recently advised the potential Defendant, as sole Counsel, in respect of a threatened multi-million-pound dispute concerning the proposed termination of a PFI contract in the North of England.

As set out above, in recent years, Matthew has been heavily involved in a series of high-value disputes concerning the termination of commercial agreements. Those disputes span a wide variety of industry sectors and are principally concerned with the validity and financial consequences of purported (or threatened) terminations. Recent examples include:

• For the Defendant, as sole Counsel, in respect of a multi-million-pound adjudication claim concerned with the purported termination of a food production facility in the UK.
• For the Potential Defendant, as sole Counsel, in respect of a threatened multi-million-pound dispute concerning the proposed termination of a PFI contract in the North of England.
• Junior Counsel in respect of a 10-day multi-million-pound arbitration concerned with the purported termination of a commercial agreement relating to a power plant in Europe.

Recent examples of Matthew’s international arbitration work include:

• For the claimant, as sole counsel, in respect of a $15m international arbitration (LCIA) arising in the energy sector.
• For the Respondent hotel owner, as sole Counsel, in LCIA proceedings relating to the construction of a hotel in Libya.
• For the Claimant specialist contractor, as sole Counsel, in ad hoc proceedings relating to the design and construction of headquarters for a boutique financial firm based in Jersey.
• Junior Counsel in respect of a 10-day multi-million-pound arbitration concerned with the purported termination of a commercial agreement relating to a power plant in Europe.
• Acting as Tribunal Secretary in respect of a $2bn ICC arbitration arising out of a commercial contract in the Middle East.

Adjudication

• For the Referring Party employer, as sole Counsel, in a multi-million pound commercial claim for liquidated and ascertained damages and damages at common law.
• For the Referring Party plant owner in proceedings relating to the design and construction of a waste treatment plant in southern England.
• For the Responding Party contractor, as sole Counsel, in a claim for payment pursuant to contract relating to office fit-out works.

Mediation

• For the Claimant building association, as sole Counsel in the successful mediation of an insurance dispute in proceedings concerning a plea of non est factum.
• For the Claimant adjoining home owner in the successful mediation of a dispute under the Party Wall Act 1996.