Matt Hutchings KC

> People > Barristers > Matt Hutchings KC

Matt Hutchings KC has a broad practice spanning public law and property and commercial litigation. He is the ideal barrister to advise in cases involving elements of commercial, property and public law.

Matt has experience of appearing before the Supreme Court and House of Lords, in R (Z) v Hackney LBC, McDonald v McDonald, Hotak v Southwark LBC, R (N) v Lewisham LBC and Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond upon Thames LBC. He also appeared before the CJEU in R (Hemming) v Westminster City Council.

Matt has represented clients before the Court of Appeal on dozens of occasions, on issues ranging from the interpretation of commercial contracts, to rights of possession, self-help evictions, landlord and tenant, enfranchisement, civil procedure, environmental law, planning enforcement, open spaces, human rights, discrimination, traffic management, age assessments, housing and homelessness.

Recent High Court successes include R (Wilkinson) v Enfield LBC, a challenge to Enfield’s decision to lease part of a public park; and Bexley LBC v London & Quadrant Housing Trust, a dispute about the interpretation of a nomination rights deed executed pursuant to a stock transfer agreement.

Matt has a wealth of experience in commercial and property dispute resolution, including by litigation in the Business and Property Courts, by arbitration and by mediation.

Matt offers advice that is practical and realistic and has a keen understanding of his clients’ commercial and strategic aims.

In June 2016, Matt was appointed Junior Counsel to the Crown – A Panel. His appointment to A Panel ceased on being appointed silk in February 2017.

Expertise

Property
Many of Matt’s cases are about property or have a property law element.

Matt combines both depth and breadth of knowledge, covering the full range of chambers’ Property work, including:
- landlord and tenant (both residential and commercial)
- real property
- development sites affected by easements, restrictive covenants and access issues
- highways
- trusts
- equitable remedies
- conveyancing disputes
- contested CPOs and CPO compensation
- planning enforcement
- property-related contracts, torts and criminal liability
- property-related professional negligence
Matt’s recent caseload includes:
- London Borough of Southwark v Bombay Development Ltd. Claim in Business and Property Courts (Ch D) for an injunction, damages in lieu of an injunction and/or negotiating damages in respect of breaches and threatened breaches of section 106 agreement in respect of residential development.
- Peckham Rye Station Square. CPO compensation reference in relation to 1930s shopping arcade on Rye Lane. Effect of underlease not having been noted in charges register of superior leasehold title.
- London Borough of Enfield v Mitchells & Butlers. Dispute about partial felling of c. 500 year old oak tree known as “Whitewebbs ancient oak” on lease premises that attracted national media attention. Tenant’s liability for waste, implied rights in relation to trees, statutory health & safety duties and waiver of right to forfeit.
- Wyre Borough Council v Transwaste Recycling and Aggregates Ltd. Dispute about nuisance emanating from leased landfill site. Jervis v Harris clause, on-demand bond, forfeiture, tortious liability for nuisance and statutory nuisance.
- Westminster City Council v Gems House Residences Chiltern Street Ltd. Claim in Business and Property Courts (Ch D) to enforce planning obligations in respect of 16 affordable housing units at a development in W1. Interpretation of mortgagee exclusion clause. Interim injunction granted until trial. Claim dismissed at trial. Permission to appeal granted by the Court of Appeal.
- Park Lane central reservation. Advised Transport for London on range of options for the removal of rough sleepers from Park Lane central reservation.
- Huntingdonshire District Council v Godmanchester Town Council. Dispute between district council and parish council about ownership of recreation ground and riverbank attracting national media coverage. Historical evidence of ownership dating from Middle Ages. Statutory transfer of title on local government reorganisation in 1974. After service of PAP letter the town council conceded Matt’s client’s case.
- Walworth Common Trust. Advised the London Borough of Southwark in relation to charitable trust established by the Walworth Common Inclosure Amendment Act 1851.
- Fox Valley, Stocksbridge, Sheffield. Dispute between owner of retail park and Aldi about exclusivity covenant in lease. Controlled Land Order 2010; Competition Act 1998; s.84 application to discharge or modify covenant.
- London Borough of Camden v PGP Securities No. 9 Ltd. Claim in Business and Property Courts (Ch D) concerning alleged affordable housing avoidance scheme. Duty of good faith in s.106 agreement. Interim injunction granted until trial.
- Bexley LBC v London & Quadrant Housing Trust. Claim in Business and Property Courts (Ch D) concerning stock transfer agreement. Whether Nomination Rights Deed executed on completion of the stock transfer required L&Q to obtain Bexley’s consent to sales of vacant properties from the transferred stock. Interim injunction refused. Mr Justice Edwin Johnson granted L&Q’s application for summary judgment, resolving the issue of interpretation in favour of Matt’s client.
- Rail for London v Urban Edge Group. Claim in Business and Property Courts (Ch D) to rectify agreement settling compensation claim in respect of land CPO’d for the East London Line Extension. Claim settled on basis that agreement rectified.
- Bank station capacity upgrade. Advised London Underground Ltd on a dispute with City of London concerning overlapping contractual, property and planning issues arising from the station upgrade. Interpretation of contractual reinstatement obligation. Following Matt’s advice, settlement entered into between LUL and CoL.
Public Law and Judicial Review
Matt advises local authorities on major projects, such as the High Road West housing development in Tottenham, the Bacton Estate development in Gospel Oak and the West End Project traffic scheme in Bloomsbury. These projects exist at the intersection of public, commercial and property law.

He is active across the social housing sector, providing strategic advice to many London boroughs, particularly in the areas of regeneration, property, homelessness and housing.

A significant part of Matt’s practice relates to highways and traffic management.

He represents clients in high profile litigation concerning a wide range of local government functions and legal issues, as illustrated by his reported cases. These include:

Supreme Court/House of Lords
- R(Z) v Hackney LBC. The first Supreme Court case on positive action under the Equality Act.
- McDonald v McDonald. Human Rights horizontality.
- Hotak v Southwark LBC. Meaning of “vulnerable”.
- R(N) v Lewisham LBC. Meaning of “dwelling”. Article 8 and eviction without due process.
- Holmes-Moorhouse v Richmond upon Thames LBC. Whether decision of family court determinative of decision of local housing authority. Leading case on reasons challenges to homelessness decisions.
Court of Justice of the EU
- R(Hemming) v Westminster CC. Services Directive and licensing.
Court of Appeal
- R (AA) v Waltham Forest. Whether personal housing plan can or should include steps to secure accommodation under Part 6.
- Bussandra v City of London. Disability and intentional homelessness.
- London Borough of Wandsworth v Young (by the Official Solicitor). Suitable alternative remedy principle in the context of public law defence to possession.
- Hodge v Folkestone and Hythe DC. Whether move on hostel accommodation was “accommodation” for the purposes of Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996.
- R (Z) v Hackney LBC. Positive action under the Equality Act 2010.
- R (HA) v Ealing LBC. Indirect discrimination in housing allocation.
- Hines v Lambeth LBC. Refusal of housing assistance to Zambrano applicant.
High Court
- R (Atonioni) v Camden LBC. No motor vehicle zone in Red Lion Street.
- R (Four Cs MAT) v Peterborough City Council. City council’s decision to refuse to lease all of former school playing field land to academy upon academisation of community school attracting national media attention.
- R (AA) v Waltham Forest LBC. Housing needs assessment and personal housing plan produced pursuant to s.189A of the Housing Act 1996.
- R (Wilkinson) v Enfield LBC. Decision to lease part of a public park for a women’s and girls’ football academy.
- UTAG & LTDA v Camden LBC. Traffic order restricting licensed taxis’ use of Tottenham Court Road. After service of Camden’s evidence, the claim was discontinued.
- R (Montero) v Lewisham LBC. Local residence rule in housing allocation scheme.
- Aspire Luxury Homes (Eversley) Ltd v Hart DC. Procedural exclusivity in relation to claim based on breach of s.106 agreement.
- Waltham Forest LBC v Redbridge LBC. Mediation about which local authority liable for costs of care c. £1m.
- R (J) v Hillingdon LBC. S.11 Children Act 2004 in the context of assessment of housing needs of disabled child.
- Kuznetsov v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. Apparent bias in context of CPO for residential development.
- Dacorum BC v Bucknall. At what point does accommodation for a homeless applicant become “let as a dwelling”?
- R (Kensington and Chelsea RLBC) v Ealing LBC. Judicial review of refusal of local connection referral.
- Dawson v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. Refusal of certificate of lawful development.
- R (Powell) v Brighton Marina Co Ltd. Whether works ultra vires the Brighton Marina Act 1968.
Commercial and Regulatory
Matt has several decades of experience in commercial litigation, including contested applications for the full range of interim remedies, such as injunctions, freezing orders, search orders and security for costs. Matt relishes the challenges of High Court trials. He represents clients in a wide variety of commercial disputes.

His recent caseload includes:
- High Road West. Dispute between London Borough of Haringey and Lendlease about development agreement and CPO indemnity agreement relating to 11 hectare development site in Tottenham.
- Community Fibre Ltd v London Borough of Croydon. Contract for broadband services at 680 buildings. Vires, agent’s authority and remedies.
- Horsell Common Preservation Society v Woking BC. Claim in Business and Property Courts (Ch D) concerning contract establishing Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace contribution fund.
- Bacton Phase 2. Dispute between London Borough of Camden and Mount Anvil concerning development agreement relating to residential development site in Gospel Oak.
- Westminster City Council v Gems House Residences Chiltern Street Ltd. Claim in Business and Property Courts (Ch D) to enforce planning obligations in respect of 16 affordable housing units at a development in W1. Interpretation of mortgagee exclusion clause. Interim injunction granted until trial. Claim dismissed at trial. Permission to appeal granted by the Court of Appeal.
- Carepoint Services Ltd v London Borough of Lewisham. Capitated budget demographic changes adjustment clause in 5 year contract for home care services. Construction of contract; implied terms; rectification by construction.
- Livity Life Ltd v London Borough of Hackney. Claim in Business and Property Courts (TCC) challenging procurement of technology enabled living service for vulnerable adults.
- Tiger Bus Routes procurement. Dispute about procurement of six subsidised local bus routes.
- London Borough of Camden v PGP Securities No. 9 Ltd. Claim in Business and Property Courts (Ch D) concerning alleged affordable housing avoidance scheme. Duty of good faith in s.106 agreement. Interim injunction granted until trial.
- Bexley LBC v London & Quadrant Housing Trust. Claim in Business and Property Courts (Ch D) concerning stock transfer agreement. Whether Nomination Rights Deed executed on completion of the stock transfer required L&Q to obtain Bexley’s consent to sales of vacant properties from the transferred stock. Interim injunction refused. Mr Justice Edwin Johnson granted L&Q’s application for summary judgment, resolving the issue of interpretation in favour of Matt’s client.
- Rail for London v Urban Edge Group. Claim in Business and Property Courts (Ch D) to rectify agreement settling compensation claim in respect of land CPO’d for the East London Line Extension. Claim settled on basis that agreement rectified.
- Thakeham Homes Ltd v Gateley Plc & Aviva Insurance Ltd. Claim in Business and Property Courts (Ch D) concerning alleged professional negligence in relation to acquisition of linked development sites. SRA MTCs and successor practice rule; Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010.
- Advising Welsh RSLs in relation to deemed unfitness. Statutory interpretation; restitution of rent paid in respect of dwellings deemed unfit; compatibility of legislative scheme with A1P1.
- Advising LSE in relation to fire safety duties in respect of Marshall Building occupied by protesters.
- NHS Dorset ICB v West Sussex County Council. Restitutionary claim by NHS for 6 years’ cost of care in excess of £1m incurred due to alleged breach of West Sussex’s statutory duties under the Care Act 2014.
- Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd v University of Surrey & Research Park Developments Ltd. Multiple claims in Business and Property Courts (Ch D) relating to blocks of student accommodation. Building Safety Act 2022.
- Ffos-y-Fran Land Reclamation Scheme. Injunctive relief; insolvency; transactions at an undervalue/defrauding creditors; release of funds from escrow account. Linked with £6m summary judgment application in Merthyr Tydfil CBC v Merthyr (South Wales) Ltd.
- Represented firm of solicitors in High Court (QBD) claim for breach of fiduciary duties against former partner. Worldwide freezing order. Knowing receipt claim against wife of the former partner in the firm.

He is a phenomenal barrister, incredibly charming with a brilliant mind.
Chambers UK Bar (2024)

If I had to instruct someone to fight for me, it would be Hutchings.
Chambers UK Bar (2024)

Matt has a razor-sharp mind
Chambers UK Bar (2025)

Matt balances legal complexities and our strategic aims, and his advocacy is first rate.
Chambers UK Bar (2024)

Matt is a standout barrister. He is bright, sensible and a pleasure to have as an opponent.
Chambers UK Bar (2023)

He demonstrates phenomenal intellect and is refreshingly honest in his advice.
Chambers UK Bar (2022)

About Matt

Directory Quotes
- Social Housing – “Matt has been on-hand when the matter became very complex. He gave clear and helpful guidance.” Chambers and Partners 2026
- Social Housing – “He has incredible knowledge of the law and a keen eye for detail, as well as a commercial focus and very good understanding of strategy and court procedure.” Chambers and Partners 2026
- Social Housing – “Matt Hutchings KC is a highly regarded, passionate advocate with a broad housing practice. He is known for his adept representation of local authorities, tenants and homeless applicants before all levels of court.” Chambers and Partners 2026
- Local Government – “Matt Hutchings KC is a civil and commercial litigation specialist who offers further expertise in real estate, housing and public sector law. He is highly sought after by public authorities.” Chambers and Partners 2026
- Local Government – “Matt is extremely personable and has a flair with his engagement. He instils the highest level of reassurance and confidence with clients.” Chambers and Partners 2026
- Local Government – “Matt has a razor-sharp mind and top-notch client skills.” Chambers and Partners 2025
- Social Housing – “He has the ability to dive into complex matters and make them digestible for clients.” Chambers and Partners 2025
- Local Government – “He is a phenomenal barrister, incredibly charming with a brilliant mind.” “Matt balances legal complexities and our strategic aims, and his advocacy is first rate.” “He is a very hard-working and responsive individual.” Chambers and Partners 2024
- Social Housing – “Matt Hutchings KC is a really good barrister and if I had to instruct someone to fight for me, it would be Hutchings.” Chambers and Partners 2024
- Local Government – “He is a very good advocate. His submissions are clear, succinct and persuasive.” Legal 500 2024
- Social Housing – “Matt is a standout barrister. He is bright, sensible and a pleasure to have as an opponent.” Chambers and Partners 2023
- Local Government – “He is very smart and quick-witted.” Chambers and Partners 2023
- Local Government – “He demonstrates phenomenal intellect and is refreshingly honest in his advice.” “He is great on his feet, always well prepared and easy to deal with.” Chambers and Partners 2022
- Social Housing – “Highly regarded, passionate advocate with a broad housing practice. He is known for his adept representation of local authorities, tenants and homeless applicants before all levels of court. Strengths: “His oral advocacy is impressive.” Chambers and Partners 2021
- Local Government – “A civil and commercial litigation specialist who offers further expertise in real estate, housing and public sector law. He is highly sought after by public authorities. Strengths: “Very incisive and knowledgeable about local government and housing law.” “Excellent in court.” Chambers and Partners 2021
- “An incredible barrister – he is articulate and charming.” “He’s very bright, very professional and a sensible opponent.” “An excellent barrister who is quick at turning things around and is able gets straight to the heart of the matter.” Chambers and Partners 2020
- “Excellent.” “A strong advocate. He is very hard-working.” Chambers and Partners 2020
- “Very impressive and someone who offers good client service.” “A superb new silk.” Chambers and Partners 2019
- “A civil and commercial litigation specialist who offers further expertise in real estate, housing and public sector law. Having recently taken silk, he is highly sought after by private individuals, public authorities and commercial entities. ‘He’s ferociously bright and incredibly commercially minded.’ ” Chambers and Partners 2018
- “Hardworking and bright” ” A well-deserved new silk who is a very good lawyer.” Chambers and Partners 2018
- “He provides a high-quality service which encompasses great preparation of files, robust skeleton arguments and stylish presentation in court.” Chambers and Partners 2017
- “Very tenacious and a stiff opponent for anyone.” Chambers and Partners 2016
- “He’s very impressive and very smart.” “His analytical skills and ability to extract salient facts pertinent to the case are unbelievable.” Chambers and Partners 2016
Services
- Regularly provides strategic advice to Government across a wide range of functions.
- Highly regarded trainer and lecturer to Government and Development sectors.
Associations
- ALBA
- PBA
- HRLA
Publications
Notable Cases
Events