Matthew Sheridan

Business Competition / High Court Employment

Matthew has considerable experience of acting in business competition cases (particularly in relation to applications for injunctive relief). He has expertise in relation to abuse of confidential information/database rights, enforcing restrictive covenants, springboard relief, diversion of business opportunities and all of the other issues which arise in the context of team-moves. Matthew also acts regularly in claims relating to senior executive compensation/remuneration.

Matthew has acted for clients across a variety of sectors including banking, inter-dealer broking, insurance, technology, recruitment and pharmaceuticals. Some recent cases include:

Wallwork v Weightmans LLP: acted for an equity member in the defendant law firm in seeking a declaration that a ‘departure lounge clause’ in the firm’s LLP agreement was unenforceable. Led by John Mehrzad KC. Opposing counsel were Paul Goulding KC and Alex Robson. (2024)
Guy Carpenter & Co Ltd & Others v Howden Group Holdings Ltd & Others: acted for two individual defendants in an extremely heavy and complex ‘team move’ case in the reinsurance sector. The case involved international elements and was listed for a 6 week expedited trial. Led by Gavin Mansfield KC. Opposing counsel were Daniel Oudkerk KC and a several junior counsel. Co-defending counsel were David Craig KC and several junior counsel. (2023)
David Hills v Aldi Stores Ltd: acted for a senior employee who sought a declaration that a restrictive covenant was unenforceable. The key issue was whether the covenant needed to be supported by consideration in circumstances where it had been introduced by way of deed. Led by John Mehrzad KC. (2023)
Credico Marketing Ltd v Lambert [2022] EWCA Civ 864: acted for a direct marketing agency in its claims to enforce restrictive covenants against a marketing company in its network (and against its owner/director). The claims succeeded at a speedy trial before Cavanagh J, whose decision was partially overturned by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal gave guidance on the correct approach to: (i) assessing the enforceability of covenants in agreements other than employment contracts; and (ii) determining the existence of legitimate business interests. Led by John Mehrzad KC. (2022)
JLT Specialty Ltd v Ed Broking LLP and others: acted for the claimant in a substantial ‘team move’ in the insurance broking sector. Led by Daniel Oudkerk KC. Opposing counsel were Paul Goulding KC and Craig Rajgopaul (and Gavin Mansfield KC and Jamie Susskind). (2020-2021)
JLT Specialty Ltd v Hyperion Insurance Group Ltd and others: acted for the claimant in a large-scale ‘team move’ case in the insurance broking sector. The defendants were alleged to have unlawfully recruited several teams of the claimant’s employees in the wake of the acquisition of the claimant by Marsh & McLennan. Led by Daniel Oudkerk KC. Opposing counsel were David Craig KC and Edward Brown. (2019)
Chess People Ltd and another v Henderson and others: acted for the claimant in a ‘team move’ case in the technology solutions sector in which the defendants were alleged to have removed a very substantial volume of the claimant’s confidential information. Led by Gavin Mansfield KC. Opposing counsel were Daniel Tatton-Brown KC and Adam Solomon KC. (2019)
Investec Bank Plc v Muzinich & Co Ltd and others: acted for Muzinich & Co Ltd, an asset management company which was alleged to have unlawfully recruited from Investec a team of employees operating in the aviation finance sector. Led by Daniel Oudkerk KC. Opposing counsel was David Reade KC. (2019)
Secarma Ltd v Forse and others: acted for the claimant in a large-scale ‘team move’ case in the technology solutions sector. Led by Gavin Mansfield KC then Daniel Oudkerk KC. Opposing counsel were Thomas Croxford KC and others. (2019)
Al-Bassam v (1) DB Group Services (UK) Limited (2) Deutsche Bank AG (Comm): acted for Mr Al-Bassam in a claim relating to his entitlement to deferred compensation. Led by Jonathan Cohen KC. Opposing counsel was David Craig KC. (2018)
IBM UK Ltd v Petley (QB): acted for IBM in seeking to enforce post-termination restrictive covenants against a former senior executive who left to join a competitor. Led by Paul Goulding KC. The case settled before trial. Opposing counsel was Richard Leiper KC. (2018)
ICAP Management Services Ltd v (1) Dean Berry (2) BGC Services (Holdings) LLP [2017] IRLR 811(QB): acted (leading Alexander Robson) for Dean Berry in defending ICAP’s claim for a garden leave injunction. In addition to ‘classic’ garden leave injunction issues, the case concerned the application of TUPE to the sale (by share acquisition) by ICAP Plc of its inter-dealer broking business to Tullett Prebon Plc (now TP ICAP Plc). Opposing counsel were Daniel Oudkerk KC, Jane McCafferty and Edward Brown; BGC was represented by Paul Goulding KC, Diya Sen Gupta and Kerenza Davis. (2017)
Hume Brophy Communications v Mary Clark & others (QB): acted (as sole counsel) for Hume Brophy in seeking injunctive relief against four defendants (each separately represented) in the context of an alleged unlawful team-move in the investor relations sector. (2017)
Alvarez & Marsal v KPMG LLP & others (ChD): acted for KPMG in (i) defending a claim for declaratory relief and (ii) bringing a claim in respect of an alleged unlawful team-move. Led by Gavin Mansfield KC. The case settled before trial. Opposing counsel included Paul Goulding KC and David Craig KC. (2016)
Bluefin Insurance Services Limited v Global Risk Partners & others (QB): acted for the claimant in a substantial insurance sector team-move case (led by Gavin Mansfield KC). Conducted advocacy at the interim stage. The case settled at trial. Opposing counsel were Damian Brown KC and Adam Solomon. (2016)
Hitachi Rail Europe Ltd & anor v Matrix Research Ltd & anor (ChD): acted (as sole counsel) successfully for the respondent to an application for aNorwich Pharmacal order sought by the claimants in support of rights under the Data Protection Act 1998. (2016)

Commercial

Credico Marketing Ltd v Lambert [2022] EWCA Civ 864: acted for a direct marketing agency in its claims to enforce restrictive covenants in a commercial agreement. The issues in the case included novation, estoppel by convention, the nature of guarantees, what constitutes consideration for ‘contractual’ undertakings and the scope of the doctrine of restraint of trade. The claims succeeded at a speedy trial before Cavanagh J, whose decision was partially overturned by the Court of Appeal. Led by John Mehrzad KC. (2022)
Vestey Foods UK Ltd v Cox and others(Ch): applied successfully to discharge a freezing injunction. Matthew acted (as sole counsel) for a defendant to a substantial fraud claim in which the claimant alleged that the defendants (who had been senior employees of the claimant) owned a secret interest in one of its suppliers and had contracted with it on the claimant’s behalf on unduly favourable terms. Opposing counsel was Thomas Braithwaite. (2018)
Richard Samuel v Dean Street Advisers Limited (QB): acted (as sole counsel) for the claimant in a claim for a substantial contractual commission payment arising from a corporate finance transaction. The case settled shortly before trial. Opposing counsel was Nicholas Peacock KC. (2018)
Smiggle UK Limited & anor v Harper Dennis Hobbs Limited (ChD): acted for the defendant in resisting an injunction application for ‘barring out’ relief (an injunction preventing a service provider from acting for a client on the basis that, in doing so, there might be a risk of misuse of a former client’s confidential information). Led by Neil Kitchener KC. Opposing counsel were Anthony Peto KC and Adam Baradon. (2017)
acting in claims for substantial ‘earn out’ payments owed pursuant to agreements relating to the sale of a business including advising on the effect of tax indemnities given by the sellers to the purchasers. Led by David Reade KC. (2017)
advised a manufacturer of industrial abrasives on the merits of claims for breach of copyright, passing off, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. (2016)

Statutory Employment

Matthew has extensive experience of defending and bringing statutory employment claims at Tribunal, Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal level. In particular, he has particular expertise in relation to: (i) Discrimination, victimisation and harassment; (ii) Whistleblowing/public interest disclosure; (iii) Employment status; and (iv) TUPE.

The following are some examples of Matthew’s recent cases:

Ryanair DAC v Lutz [2023] EAT 146: acted for Ryanair in defending a claim by a contractor pilot that he was an ‘agency worker’ under the Agency Worker Regulations 2010. This was a test case (and is only the fourth occasion on which the EAT has considered the question of who is an ‘agency worker’). The ET and EAT both concluded that the claimant was an ‘agency worker’. Ryanair has appealed to the Court of Appeal. Led by John Bowers KC. Opposing counsel are Michael Ford KC and Stuart Brittenden. Co-respondent’s counsel are Edward Brown KC and Tim Welch. (2022-2024)
Bernard Randall v The Bishop of Derby & Others (ET): acted for the Bishop of Derby in defending claims of discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief brought by a priest in the Church of England. The ET concluded that the Bishop was not a ‘qualifications body’ and, therefore, that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claims. The claimant has appealed to the EAT. (2023-2024)
Pemberton v Inwood[2018] ICR 1291 (CA), [2017] ICR 9292 (EAT): acted successfully in the ET, EAT and Court of Appeal for the Bishop of Nottingham & Southwell in defending a claim of sexual orientation discrimination brought by a priest who entered into a same sex marriage. The case related to the lawfulness of the Church of England’s prohibition on same sex marriage amongst clergy. The Court of Appeal updated the guidance on the correct approach to be taken to harassment claims which was given in Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal [2009] ICR 724 in light of the enactment of the Equality Act 2010. It also clarified the ambit of (a) the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 giving ETs jurisdiction over ‘qualifications bodies’ and (b) the exemptions for religious organisations contained in Schedule 9. Matthew was led by Thomas Linden KC. Opposing counsel was Sean Jones KC. (2018)Link to press coverage: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-42906132
Nason v Royal Bank of Canada (ET): acted for RBC in defending complex whistleblowing claims relating to reciprocal arrangements allegedly entered into between the debt capital markets teams at RBC and other banks in respect of the issuing of bonds. The case settled shortly before trial. Opposing counsel was Caspar Glyn KC. (2017)
Vairea & Amini v Reed Business Information Ltd[2017] ICR D9 (EAT): acted successfully for the respondent in defending whistleblowing claims brought by two sales managers. The claimants alleged that the company was involved in systematic breaches of international trade sanctions (under UK and US law) by providing embargoed countries like Syria with the tools to move money around the world (thereby allegedly facilitating terrorism). The case attracted media interest. The claims failed in the ET and EAT. The EAT’s judgment clarifies the law on the “last straw doctrine” in constructive dismissal claims. (2016)
Reverend Mark Sharpe v The Bishop of Worcester[2015] IRLR 663 (CA): Matthew acted in the Court of Appeal successfully on behalf of the Bishop in a test case concerning the employment status of Church of England clergy. The case raised important issues as to the test for implication of contracts and the extended definition of ‘worker’ for whistleblowing claims in section 43K of the ERA 1996. Matthew was led by Thomas Linden KC. Opposing counsel was John Bowers KC. (2015)

Reported Cases

Pemberton v Inwood [2018] ICR 1291 (CA), [2017] ICR 9292(EAT): acted successfully in the ET, EAT and Court of Appeal for the Bishop of Nottingham & Southwell in defending a claim of sexual orientation discrimination brought by a priest who entered into a same sex marriage. The case related to the lawfulness of the Church of England’s prohibition on same sex marriage amongst clergy. The Court of Appeal updated the guidance on the correct approach to be taken to harassment claims which was given in Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal [2009] ICR 724 in light of the enactment of the Equality Act 2010. It also clarified the ambit of (a) the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 giving ETs jurisdiction over ‘qualifications bodies’ and (b) the exemptions for religious organisations contained in Schedule 9. (2018)
ICAP Management Services Ltd v (1) Dean Berry (2) BGC Services (Holdings) LLP [2017] IRLR 811(QB): acted (leading Alexander Robson) for Dean Berry in defending ICAP’s claim for a garden leave injunction. In addition to ‘classic’ garden leave injunction issues, the case concerned the application of TUPE to the sale (by share acquisition) by ICAP Plc of its inter-dealer broking business to Tullett Prebon Plc (now TP ICAP Plc). (2017)
Vairea & Amini v Reed Business Information Ltd[2017] ICR D9 (EAT): acted successfully for the respondent in defending whistleblowing claims brought by two sales managers. The claimants alleged that the company was involved in systematic breaches of international trade sanctions (under UK and US law) by providing embargoed countries like Syria with the tools to move money around the world (thereby allegedly facilitating terrorism). The case attracted media interest. The claims failed in the ET and EAT. The EAT’s judgment clarifies the law on the “last straw doctrine” in constructive dismissal claims. (2016)
Reverend Mark Sharpe v The Bishop of Worcester[2015] IRLR 663 (CA): Employment status of Church of England clergy; Test for implication of contracts; Extended definition of ‘worker’ for whistleblowing claims in section 43K ERA 1996.
King v Royal Bank of Canada[2012] IRLR 280 (EAT): Correct approach to compensation (Polkey) in unfair dismissal cases.
Law Society of England & Wales v Secretary of State for Justice and another [2010] IRLR 407(QB): Claim for declaratory relief as to the application of TUPE and the Henke exception for public administrative authorities.
Lindley v Perry’s Motor Sales Ltd [2008] All ER (D) 32 (EAT): TUPE, transfer of rights and liabilities.
Gravell v Bexley London Borough Council [2008] All ER (D) 291 (EAT): Strike out of discrimination claims.
Davis v Pyrz [2007] All ER (D) 160(EAT): Employer’s counterclaims – measure of damages.
Khan v Premier Private Hire Taxi[2007] All ER (D) 134 (EAT): Strike out of claims on paper.
Baron v Bliss Mediation Services [2006] All ER (D) 473 (EAT): Remedy of procedural unfairness by internal appeal.
Mayo-Deman v University of Greenwich[2005] IRLR 845 (EAT): Validity of compromise agreements.
Rabahallah v British Telecom Plc [2005] ICR 440, [2005] IRLR 184(EAT): Rules on composition of employment tribunals.
Holland v BHS[2005] All ER (D) 5 (EAT): Unfair dismissal – range of reasonable responses.
Greaves v Banner Business Supplies Ltd[2005] All ER (D) 26 (EAT): Indirect sex discrimination – test for justification.
Maresca v Motor Insurance Repair Research Centre[2004] All ER 254, [2005] ICR 197 (EAT): Application of the Civil Procedure Rules in the Employment Tribunals.