Matthew Friedlander

Associate

  • Matthew Friedlander
  • Phone: +44 20 7786 2143
    Fax: +44 20 7681 1833

    Import to Address Book

  • Duane Morris
    Citypoint, 16th Floor
    One Ropemaker Street
    London, UK EC2Y 9AW

Matthew J. Friedlander practices as a dispute resolution lawyer with a focus construction and engineering law.

Mr Friedlander has extensive experience advising clients on a range of technical disputes often centered around large and complex infrastructure projects in sectors such as energy, transport and building.

Mr Friedlander’s clients, both domestic and international, cover a broad range of industry professionals from specialist sub-contractors to large multinational employers as well as high profile international joint ventures.

Mr Friedlander’s experience extends to all forms of dispute resolution, including international arbitration, TCC litigation, adjudication and the resolution of claims under the UK’s Pre-Action Protocol for construction and engineering disputes.

Mr Friedlander is a member of the Society of Construction Law.

Areas of Practice

  • Construction Law

Admissions

  • England and Wales

Education

  • The College of Law of England and Wales, LPC, 2011
  • University College London, LL.M., 2009
  • Anglia Ruskin University, B.A. (Hons), 2008

Experience

  • Duane Morris
    - Associate, 2020-present
  • Trowers & Hamlin LLP
    - Associate, 2017-2019
  • Stephenson Harwood LLP
    - Associate, 2016
  • Pinsent Masons LLP
    - Solicitor, 2014-2016
  • Tate and Lyle Sugars
    - Solicitor, 2013-2014
  • Pinsent Masons LLP
    - Trainee, 2011-2013

Representative Matters

  • Representing a leading US engineering contractor in relation to a dispute arising out of a Regasification project in India. The contractor was part of a consortium for the project, but incurred significant cost overruns, and the client contends that those cost overruns (amounting to approximately $15m) were incurred due to the actions of its fellow consortium partner. Commenced proceedings in the TCC in London to recover the same from the consortium partner’s parent company pursuant to the terms of a Parent Company Guarantee.

  • Acted for a civil works subcontractor in an international arbitration under the ICC rules, pursuing a claim for approximately £40m under a bespoke contract based loosely on the FIDIC Red Form for the execution of civil and building works for the construction of a gas-fired combined cycle electric generating plant. The arbitration resulted in an award in favour of the client.

  • Advised a consortium of leading UK and international contractors in relation to the consortium’s contract for upgrade works to a major arterial line in the UK. Completion was delayed by over two years, and additional costs of over £100m incurred, due to design delays and access restrictions imposed by the client. Successfully formulated a new contractual argument and approach for the client which led to the employer abandoning the bulk of its defence and subsequently amending its entire suite of contracts. The remainder of the case was the subject of proceedings in the Court of Appeal.

  • Advised a specialist subcontractor in the resolution of its final account with the main contractor; disputes had arisen due to delays and cost overruns for which liability was disputed. Commenced Part 8 proceedings against the main contractor in relation to a point of interpretation of the subcontract which, if successful, would have fatally undermined the main contractor’s case, and used the pressure created by the litigation to negotiate a settlement, on terms the client found highly favorable, before the matter came to trial.

  • Advised a UK housing association in respect of defective cladding installed on a large residential tower block in the UK, initially advising in respect of its claims for government funding. Secured all necessary expert evidence to demonstrate that the cladding was defective, advised the client on its programme for removal and replacement of the cladding, and pursued claims on behalf of the client against the cladding contractor for losses incurred in replacing the cladding. The client was ultimately able to secure a settlement, on terms it found favorable, of its claims against its contractor.