Matthew Maddison

Matthew is a restructuring and insolvency specialist. His contentious practice includes Part 26A restructuring plans, high-value and hotly-contested administration applications and winding-up petitions, injunctions, substantial misfeasance proceedings, opposed para 71 applications, Berkeley Applegate applications, officeholder remuneration, challenges to voluntary arrangements and challenges to officeholder appointments. In addition, Matthew regularly advises on non-contentious matters, including validity of charges, deeds of priority, insolvency set-off (particularly in respect of FCA redress), passing of title to goods and whether assets are subject to a trust.

Reported Insolvency Cases

• NGI Systems & Solutions Limited v The Good Box Labs Co Ltd [2023] EWHC 274 (Ch); [2023] Bus. L.R. 562; [2023] B.C.C. 527; [2023] 2 B.C.L.C. 397

Acted on behalf of the applicant creditor, NGI Systems & Solutions Limited, in what is understood to have been the first Part 26A Restructuring Plan to be sanctioned outside of London.

• Richmondshire District Council v Dealmaster [2021] EWHC 2892 (Ch)

Creditor challenge to a CVA on multiple grounds, including (1) alleged under-valuation of the Company’s assets in the table of comparison between CVA and liquidation; and (2) appeal against nominee’s decision to admit debt of another creditor for voting.

• Re. Tokenhouse VB Limited [2020] EWHC 3171 (Ch)

Challenge to the validity or regularity of an out-of-court appointment of administrators by directors, in circumstances where there had been a failure to give prior notice to a qualifying floating chargeholder in breach of paragraph 26(1) of Schedule B1.

• Re. High Street Rooftop Holdings Limited [2020] EWHC 2572 (Ch)

Contested administration application, in which the company (the borrower) asserted that, in consequence of alleged oral assurances, the applicant (the lender) was estopped from relying upon the repayment dates stipulated in the facility agreements. Novel question of law as to whether fulfilment of a statutory purpose is a necessary condition for a paragraph 35 Sch. B1 appointment.

• Re. Arlington Infrastructure Limited [2020] EWHC 3123 (Ch)

Challenge to the validity of out-of-court appointment of administrators. Is a qualifying floating charge rendered “unenforceable” for the purpose of para 16 Schedule B1 in consequence of a contractual promise made to a third party, notwithstanding that the chargor company is not a party to that contract and not entitled to rely upon or enforce its terms?

• Re. Arlington Infrastructure Limited [2020] EWHC 3350 (Ch)

Application for retrospective administration order, opposed by the respondent companies and other interested parties. Interpretation of a “Permitted Disposal” clause, and whether it required a qualifying floating chargeholder to release a personal covenant to pay.

• Re. BM Electrical Solutions Limited [2020] EWHC 2749 (Ch)

Claim against director for unlawful dividends and unexplained transactions.

Other ongoing / recent unreported cases

• Sole counsel in £27m misfeasance claim against six directors, in respect of dissipation of £20m+ loan from overseas investor.
• Advising in respect of recovery of substantial loan to fund the administration of a football team, and effect of insolvency set-off in respect of alleged counterclaim for fraudulent misrepresentation.
• Acting for the joint liquidators in a substantial misfeasance and preference claim against director of company which traded as wholesaler of frozen seafood.
• Acted on behalf of major UK retailer seeking an injunction to restrain advertisement of a winding up petition in respect of a £3m+ debt said to be payable in respect of consultancy services.
• Acted for petitioning creditor in contested bankruptcy proceedings in respect of c. £30m debt.
• Acted for security trustee in respect of para 71 application, in which the Administrators proposed that the Court could elect to bypass the security trustee and pay distributions totalling c. £1.65m directly to the beneficiaries.
• Opposed application to set-aside statutory demand in respect of c. £1.3m debt. and subsequently secured bankruptcy order.
• Advised joint liquidators in respect of substantial misfeasance proceedings and recoveries against third-party suppliers, following collapse of a bulk IVA provider.

Matthew’s practice encompasses a wide spectrum of commercial disputes, including contract, agency, guarantees, unlawful means conspiracy, supply of goods and services (incl. technology, industrial plant and machinery), and shareholder and partnership disputes (incl. breach of trust, fiduciary duties, tracing and unfair prejudice petitions). With a keen eye for detail, Matthew is confident handling technical disputes, and is noted for his ability to condense complex issues to provide accessible and practical advice.

Reported Commercial Litigation Cases

• Holmes v Downing [2024] EWHC 2018 (Comm)

6-day trial concerning commission claims by an intermediary in respect of acquisition of two property portfolios. Acted for estate of one of the deceased purchasers.

• Electrical Waste Recycling Group Limited and another v Philips Electronics UK Limited and others [2011] EWHC 3747 (Ch); [2012] EWHC 38 (Ch)

Junior counsel in a complex competition law action brought by an electrical waste recycling company and a wholesaler of electrical goods against the four leading manufacturers of lamps in the UK, and a producer compliance scheme established pursuant to the WEEE Regulations 2006, alleging breach of section 2 Competition Act 1998 and/or Art.101 TFEU and s.18 Competition Act 1998 and/or Art.102 TFEU.

Other ongoing / recent unreported cases

• Acted for food manufacturer in proceedings issued in the Circuit Commercial Court against pest control company for damages in excess of £12 million as a result of a mouse infestation, which resulted in product recalls and termination of contracts.
• Acted for a global investment firm seeking to enforce a personal guarantee against a company director for debt exceeding £5.7 million, following the collapse of a Bulk IVA provider.
• Acted for international manufacturer in defending proceedings for substantial damages in respect of an alleged defective woodworking machine.
• Acted on behalf of Defendant at trial of preliminary issues, in respect of bitter dispute between business partners as to ownership and control of a company, involving allegations of theft, assault, breach of fiduciary duties and breach of trust.

Chambers & Partners (2025)

Commercial Dispute Resolution – North Eastern (Bar)

Ranked: Band 1

Strengths:

• “Matthew is responsive and gives succinct and practical advice.”

Restructuring/Insolvency – North Eastern (Bar)

Ranked: Band 1

Strengths:

• “A pleasure to work with. Matthew is bright, tactical and astute.”
• “Matthew is an exceptional barrister. His advice is spot on, and his way of condensing and simplifying complex issues is second to none. He gives lawyers and clients an additional layer of comfort.”
• “Matthew is very personable, intelligent and easy to work with. He’s very good in court – written and oral.”

Legal 500 (2025)

Commercial litigation – North Eastern Region

Rank: Leading Junior 1

Company and insolvency – North Eastern Region

Rank: Leading Junior 1

Testimonials:

• “A class act. Highly intelligent whilst being user-friendly. Judges warm to him, and he is great on his feet when asked difficult questions in very technical areas of law.”