Matt Hutchings KC

> People > Barristers > Matt Hutchings KC

Matt has a broad practice spanning the full range of chambers’ public law work, property, and commercial and regulatory litigation. He is the ideal barrister to advise in cases involving elements of commercial, property and public law.

Matt has several decades of experience in appearing before the High Court in both judicial reviews and commercial trials, as well as of appellate advocacy, including at the highest level.

His public law cases include Supreme Court briefs in R(Z) v Hackney, McDonald v McDonald, Hotak v Southwark and R(N) v Lewisham. He also appeared in the CJEU in R(Hemming) v Westminster. Matt has appeared before the Court of Appeal on dozens of occasions. His client recently won R(Wilkinson) v Enfield, a challenge to Enfield’s decision to lease part of a public park; the Court of Appeal refused the claimant permission to appeal.

Trial work includes Rail for London v Hackney, a landlord and tenant dispute in the Chancery Division about the construction of a rent covenant, implied terms and estoppel by convention, Chalfont St Peter v Holy Cross, a claim in unlawful interference/unlawful means conspiracy arising out of alleged planning fraud, Southwark v London District Housing Association & ors, a multi-party claim for breach/evasion of planning obligations and the Building Act arbitration following the Supreme Court decision in Manolete Partners v Hastings.

Matt has a wealth of experience in commercial dispute resolution. For example, he has advised Merthyr Tydfil on the commercial aspects of the Ffos-y-Fran Land Reclamation Scheme, is currently representing Rail for London in a claim for rectification of a settlement of a CPO compensation reference, L&Q in a dispute about the interpretation of a stock transfer agreement and Westminster and Camden in (separate) claims to enforce s.106 agreements in the context of affordable housing avoidance schemes.

He frequently acts for or against government as well as in disputes between private individuals and organisations, often in the development sector, and has a keen understanding of his clients’ commercial and strategic aims.

Matt is also 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.

Matt offers advice that is strategic, practical and realistic.

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
- trusts
- equitable remedies
- conveyancing disputes
- contested CPOs and CPO compensation
- planning enforcement
- property-related contracts and torts
- property-related professional negligence
Matt’s recent caseload includes:
- Walworth Common Trust: advising the London Borough of Southwark in relation to charitable trust established by the Walworth Common Inclosure Amendment Act 1851.
- Pret A Manger (Europe) Ltd v Berkley Land Ltd: advising Pret A Manger on express/s.62/implied rights to use rear fire exit and to place HVAC equipment on the exterior of demised premises.
- Fox Valley, Stocksbridge, Sheffield: advising owner of retail park on exclusivity covenant in Aldi lease; Controlled Land Order 2010, Competition Act 1998; s.84 application to discharge or modify covenant.
- Land adjacent to the American Express Stadium, Falmer, Brighton: advising Brighton & Hove Albion on restrictive covenants benefitting Church of England land affecting a development site.
- London Borough of Camden v PGP Securities No. 9 Ltd: claim in Chancery Division concerning alleged affordable housing avoidance scheme; mortgagee exclusion clause; breach of duty of good faith in s.106 agreement. Interim injunction obtained on short notice. Injunction continued at return date on terms that Defendant mortgagee may only dispose of affordable housing units to registered provider.
- Bexley v L&Q: dispute about interpretation of stock transfer agreement; estoppel by convention. Bexley contend that a Nomination Rights Deed executed on completion of the stock transfer requires L&Q to obtain their consent to sales of vacant properties from the transferred stock. Interim injunction refused by the High Court, Chancery Division. 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 Chancery Division to rectify an agreement settling compensation claim in respect of land CPO’d for the East London Line Extension; specific enforcement of statutory contract; effect of s.11 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965. Claim settled on basis that agreement rectified.
- Westminster City Council v Gems House Residences Chiltern Street Ltd: claim in Chancery Division to enforce planning obligations in respect of 16 affordable housing units at a development in W1. Interpretation of mortgagee exclusion clause; statutory moratorium; interim injunction until trial granted.
- Body Shop International Ltd (in administration) v Coal Pension Properties Ltd: advising Body Shop on the validity of notices under s. 26 LTA 1954 – commencement date of new tenancy, unsigned notice, reasonable recipient test.
- Huntingdonshire District Council v Godmanchester Town Council: advising district council on 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; transfer of title on local government reorganisation in 1974.
- Bank station capacity upgrade: advising London Underground Ltd on a dispute with City of London concerning overlapping contractual, property and planning issues arising from the station upgrade; interpretation of reinstatement obligation; damages in lieu of specific performance.
- Avisford Grange Development: advising National Highways in relation to dispute about legal agreement to compensate impact of Arundel bypass; expert determination; departure from instructions.
- Torr v Crown Estate Commissioners: interpretation of rent review clause: whether modern ground rent based on the letting value of the site includes development value. Settled on favourable terms after hearing.
- AHGR Ltd v Marsh: defending claims for declarations of breaches of user covenants in three long leases of live-work units in Southwark and negotiation damages; security for costs. Settled with no declaration of breaches.
- East Ham Regeneration Ltd v David Wilson Homes Ltd: claim for £1.3m rights of light payment under overage deed; interpretation of “residential development”.
- Alil Industrial Ltd v Jam Factory Freehold Ltd: defending claim for an injunction prohibiting and damages in respect of residents’ use of bin store on the basis that the claim arose out of a breach of planning control. Settled on terms that the claimant granted a lease of the bin store.
- St Anne’s House Man. Co. Ltd v TfL: defending claim for ransom value of a strip of land blocking the rear exit to the Elizabeth Line station at Tottenham Court Road, allegedly omitted from GVD under the Crossrail Act 2008.
- Rail for London v Hackney: dispute about interpretation of rent provisions in commercial lease for 99/125 years worth c.£2m per annum. Interpretation of rent covenant, implied terms and estoppel by convention. The Chancery Division trial took place in October 2022.
- Saul Construction v Hemsworth: defended claim for specific performance of contract for sale of sports centre on ground of rescission under multiple notices to complete. Claim settled on favourable terms at mediation.
- Fevore Group v Network Rail: nuisance claim arising out of diesel contamination of commercial premises involving expert engineers and valuers. Settled after exchange of expert reports on terms that Network Rail purchased the contaminated land.
- Advising Camden in relation to threatened claims arising out of defective cladding at the Chalcots Estate. No claims issued.
- Southwark v London District Housing Association & ors: multi-party claim for breach of planning obligations. Avoidance scheme, sham transactions and economic tort. Listed for 15 day trial in Ch D. Claims in respect of three sites settled, with defendants transferring 17 flats back into affordable housing use at no cost to Matt’s client. Claim at fourth site settled: 15 leaseholders and 5 banks conceded Matt’s client’s claim, with the result that 9 further flats were returned into affordable housing use.
- Bacton Low Rise Estate: advice and representation in relation to nuisance, derogation from grant and contested CPO in respect of major residential development. CPO challenges dismissed and possession of development site obtained.
- Chester Road and Balmore Street: defending threatened group litigation by 50 leaseholders in respect of construction defects. No proceedings brought.
- Manolete Partners v Hastings: 9 day Building Act arbitration following Supreme Court decision involving expert engineers, valuers and accountants. £20m claim for loss of business due to closure of Hastings Pier. Ex turpi causa defence based on breach of Health and Safety legislation. Loss of business claim rejected by arbitrator.
Public Law and Judicial Review
Matt advises local authorities on major projects, such as the High Road West housing development in Tottenham, and the West End Project traffic scheme in Bloomsbury.

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 also represents his clients in high profile litigation over a wide range of local government functions and legal issues, from public law to contract law, as illustrated by his recent reported cases.

Supreme Court
- R(Z) v Hackney: first Supreme Court case on positive action under the Equality Act.
- McDonald v McDonald: Human Rights horizontality.
- Hotak v Southwark: meaning of “vulnerable”.
- R(N) v Lewisham and R(H) v Newham: article 8 and eviction without due process.
Court of Justice of the EU
- R(Hemming) v Westminster: Services Directive and licensing.
Court of Appeal
- R(Wilkinson) v Enfield: Court of Appeal refused permission to claimant to appeal, reasoning that the judgment below was “entirely convincing”.
- Hodge v Folkestone & Hythe: meaning of “accommodation” under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 and whether it includes “move on” temporary accommodation.
- R(Burns) v Winchester: defended challenge to decision to enter into agreement for lease of open space: permission to proceed refused with costs.
- R(Z) v Hackney: positive action under the Equality Act and housing allocation.
- R(HA) v Ealing: indirect discrimination arising out of working household priority.
- R(Davey) v Cambridge: correct approach to interim injunction in Aarhus claim.
High Court
- R(Wilkinson) v Enfield: successfully defended judicial review of decision to lease part of a public park for a women’s and girls’ football academy.
- UTAG & LTDA v Camden: defended challenge to traffic order restricting licensed taxis’ use of Tottenham Court Road: after service of Camden’s evidence, the claim was discontinued with costs; the traffic orders remain in force.
- R(Mallon-Montero) v Lewisham: whether residence rule in housing allocation scheme offends reasonable preference duty: High Court Judge upheld scheme, holding that a previous High Court decision on the reasonable preference duty was incorrect.
- Aspire Luxury Homes v Hart DC: successfully defended strike out of Part 7 claim seeking declarations in relation to s.106 agreement.
- Waltham Forest v Redbridge: represented local authority in successful mediation about liability for costs of care c.£1m.
- Imperial London Hotels v Camden: successfully defended challenge to Bloomsbury traffic order.
- Kuznetsov & Braginzuk LLC v DCLG and LB Camden: successfully defended challenges to CPO and GVD in respect of major residential development.
- Dacorum v Bucknell: at what point does accommodation for the homeless become “let as a dwelling”?
- Southwark v London District Housing Association: claim in Chancery Division, issues included whether s.106 TCPA authorises restrictions on dispositions of land.
- R(Kensington & Chelsea) v Ealing: JR of refusal of homelessness local connection referral.
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. He relishes the challenges of High Court trials. He regularly advises on a wide variety of commercial disputes, procurement and commercial JRs.

His recent caseload includes:
- Tiger Bus Routes procurement: advising Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority on dispute in relation to procurement of six subsidised local bus routes.
- Fox Valley, Stocksbridge, Sheffield: advising owner of retail park on exclusivity covenant in Aldi 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 Chancery Division concerning alleged affordable housing avoidance scheme; mortgagee exclusion clause; breach of duty of good faith in s.106 agreement. Interim injunction obtained on short notice. Injunction continued at return date on terms that Defendant mortgagee may only dispose of affordable housing units to registered provider.
- Bexley v L&Q: dispute about interpretation of stock transfer agreement; estoppel by convention. Bexley contend that a Nomination Rights Deed executed on completion of the stock transfer requires L&Q to obtain their consent to sales of vacant properties from the transferred stock. Interim injunction refused by the High Court, Chancery Division. 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 Chancery Division to rectify an agreement settling compensation claim in respect of land CPO’d for the East London Line Extension; specific enforcement of statutory contract; effect of s.11 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965. Claim settled on basis that agreement rectified.
- Westminster City Council v Gems House Residences Chiltern Street Ltd: claim in Chancery Division to enforce planning obligations in respect of 16 affordable housing units at a development in W1. Interpretation of mortgagee exclusion clause; statutory moratorium; interim injunction until trial granted.
- London Borough of Brent property acquisitions for temporary accommodation: advising in relation to the impact of financial and regulatory provisions on viability of scheme.
- Avisford Grange Development: advising National Highways in relation to dispute about legal agreement to compensate impact of Arundel bypass; expert determination; departure from instructions.
- Thakeham Homes Ltd v Gateley Plc & Aviva Insurance Ltd: professional negligence in relation to acquisition of linked development sites; positive covenants in transfer; SRA MTCs & 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 and options in respect of Marshall Building occupied by protesters.
- NHS Dorset ICB v West Sussex: defending restitutionary claim by NHS for 6 years’ cost of care in excess of £1m incurred due to breach of West Sussex’s statutory duties under the Care Act 2014. Settled on confidential terms at mediation.
- Metropolitan Housing Trust v University of Surrey & Research Park Developments: Matt carried out a strategic review of multiple claims relating to blocks of student accommodation, including fire safety issues, leading to a successful global settlement.
- Ffos-y-Fran Land Reclamation Scheme: Matt has provided advice on the commercial aspects of the scheme, including injunctive relief, insolvency, transactions at an undervalue/defrauding creditors and the release of funds from an escrow account.
- Central Bedfordshire v Lochailort Fairfield: claim for penalty for late completion of school development; implied terms in s.106 agreement and access licence; force majeure.
- Representing firm of solicitors in claim for breach of fiduciary duties against former partner; successfully obtained worldwide freezing order. Successful mediation of knowing receipt claim against wife of the former partner in the firm.
- Merthyr Tydfil v Merthyr (South Wales): successfully obtained summary judgment for £6m in respect of monies to be paid into escrow account and successfully defended appeal to Court of Appeal.
- Southwark v London District Housing Association & ors: multi-party claim for breach of planning obligations. Avoidance scheme, sham transactions and economic tort. Listed for 15 day trial in Ch D. Claims in respect of three sites settled, with defendants transferring 17 flats back into affordable housing use at no cost to Matt’s client. Claim at fourth site settled: 15 leaseholders and 5 banks conceded Matt’s client’s claim, with the result that 9 further flats were returned into affordable housing use.
- Manolete Partners v Hastings: 9 day Building Act arbitration following Supreme Court decision involving expert engineers, valuers and accountants. £20m claim for loss of business due to closure of Hastings Pier rejected by arbitrator.

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
- 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