Anthony Maton


Anthony Maton, London Managing Partner at Hausfeld, has 25 years' experience of litigating claims in the United Kingdom and across the globe, and has been a law firm Partner for the last 16 of those. For the last 10 years Anthony has set up and then lead Hausfeld & Co LLP in London, where he has been at the centre of the development of Competition Damage Litigation in Europe, as well as establishing the firm as one of the go to litigation practises for actions against banks. Anthony is recognised in Chambers and Legal500 for competition litigation as well as other directories including Super Lawyers. He speaks regularly in London and abroad on Competition, Financial Services and funding issues and co-chairs two of the leading forums on Competition Litigation in Europe for GCR and the European Forum. Anthony has also been at the forefront of developing and using innovative funding methods for Clients that allow them to litigate should they choose on a no risk no cost basis. His Client base includes: Samsung, LG, PSA, Deutsche Bahn and Michelin.

Anthony has been involved in some of the largest competition claims brought in Europe including Air Cargo, Marine Hose, LIBOR, Carbon Graphite, Wax and many more. He was also the lead partner on the successfully resolved Car Glass cartel claims. Anthony is also a skilled negotiator with a renowned ability to formulate innovative settlement strategies - he has personally overseen settlements on behalf of over 100 claimants. Anthony is recognised as a leader in the field of competition litigation by Chambers and Partners 2014. He is a member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (having arbitrated under many rules including the LCIA, ICC and LME), an accredited Mediator and former Secretary of the London Solicitors Litigation Association.

Anthony's experience at Hausfeld includes acting for more than 50 oil companies from across the globe in respect of the marine hose cartel, including acting on the innovative Parker Settlement; for a group of over 30 European businesses against Shell, Exxon and other oil companies in the paraffin wax cartel; for a group of European rail national, including DB, NS & Trenitalia in the carbon cartel; acting against BA in the London arm of the global air cargo cartel litigation being run by Hausfeld for over 400 businesses; and acting in negotiating and designing the Air Passenger settlement against BA/Virgin.

Read MoreRead Less

Related News & Press

  • In The News (44)
  • Press Releases (34)
  • Articles (11)
  • Events (33)
  • November 14, 2016
    Hausfeld Ranked in Chambers & Partners UK 2017 for Competition & Banking Litigation

    Chambers & Partners UK 2017 has ranked Hausfeld as Band 1 in the Competition Law: Private Enforcement: Claimant – London category and named two London partners as Notable Practitioners. In addition, Hausfeld’s renowned Commercial Litigation practice has been recognised in the Banking Litigation: Conflict Free spotlight table.

  • September 21, 2016
    Hausfeld ranked in The Legal 500 UK 2016 for Competition, Commercial & Banking Litigation

    The Legal 500 UK 2016 has ranked Hausfeld in three different Dispute Resolution practice areas: Competition Litigation, Commercial Litigation and Banking Litigation: Investment & Retail. Furthermore, three London partners have been recognised in these categories. Such distinctions cement Hausfeld’s position as the leader in the field of antitrust/competition claimant work and distinguishes our unique offering and understanding of the financial services arena in the United Kingdom.  

  • August 26, 2016
    Damages Claims arising out of the European Commission’s Trucks Price Fixing Cartel Decision

    The Trucks cartel will have affected a significant percentage of the 600,000 hauliers operating in Europe, as well as companies or corporate groups which retain their own fleets.

  • January 18, 2016
    Hausfeld acts in successful appeal proceedings in London

    Hausfeld successfully acted in appeal proceedings involving a high value property valuation dispute in the High Court in London. This case raised novel and interesting points regarding the application of S.127 of the Insolvency Act 1986,  and clarified the manner in which judges are expected to exercise their discretion in deciding whether to validate transactions caught by S.127 of the Act.