020 7242 4986 or 0333 240 0591 London | Birmingham | Cardiff
Matt has a broad practice spanning the full range of chambers' Public Law work, Property, and Commercial and Regulatory litigation.
Matt has a broad practice spanning the full range of chambers' Public Law work, Property and Commercial and Regulatory litigation.
Matt regularly appears before the High Court in substantial trials as well as judicial reviews. His recent cases include Supreme Court briefs in R(N) v Lewisham, Hotak v Southwark and McDonald v McDonald, appearing in the CJEU in R(Hemming) v Westminster and the Building Act arbitration following the Supreme Court decision in Manolete Partners v Hastings.
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. He is able to master cases requiring an in depth knowledge of divergent areas of law and is at the cutting edge of the interaction between private, public and regulatory law.
Matt offers advice that is strategic, practical and realistic.
"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 & Partners 2018
Consistently ranked as a leading junior in Chambers & Partners, where Matt receives praise:
"very impressive and very smart"
"unbelievable" analytical skills
"very tenacious and a stiff opponent for anyone"
(Chambers & Partners 2016)
Commended in previous editions:
"razor sharp"
"can argue the impossible and win"
In June 2016 Matt was appointed Junior Counsel to the Crown – A Panel.
"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 & Partners 2018
"Hardworking and bright" " A well-deserved new silk who is a very good lawyer." Chambers & Partners 2018
"He provides a high-quality service which encompasses great preparation of files, robust skeleton arguments and stylish presentation in court." Chambers & Partners 2017
"Very tenacious and a stiff opponent for anyone." Chambers & 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 & Partners 2016
Matt specialises in Civil and Commercial Litigation, Property, Housing and Public Law.
He acts for individuals, commercial organisations and public bodies both large and small.
Matt has extensive experience of advising and representing a wide variety of clients in relation to contentious and non-contentious property matters. He 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 law, development sites affected by easements, restrictive covenants and ransom strips, trusts, equitable remedies, wills and estates, conveyancing disputes, property-related contracts and torts and property-related professional negligence.
Matt's recent property caseload includes:
Matt has appeared in some of the leading public law cases of the day. He is actively involved in advising on policies and in litigation across a broad range of local government functions, governance issues and information law, Human Rights and commercial JRs. Recent court work includes:
Supreme Court cases
Court of Justice of the EU
Ongoing court work includes:
Advisory work includes:
In June 2016 Matt was appointed Junior Counsel to the Crown – A Panel
1st December 2018
In this article published by the Local Government Lawyer, Matt Hutchings QC considers how local authorities can boost housing in their areas through their role as house builders, planning authorities and through the use of local housing companies.
You can read the article in full here.
16th May 2017
Matt Hutchings QC discusses article 8 horizontality following recent Supreme Court decisions in this area.
Please click here to view the full article.
1st July 2016
Matt Hutchings has written an article for Judicial Review on the delegation of functions by public bodies. The article focuses on three aspects of delegation considered in case law: (i) express and implied powers to delegate, (ii) rubber stamping and (iii) refusal of relief.
Click here to read the full article.
10th September 2015
Haile v Waltham Forest: Intentional homelessness, queue jumping and the "I would have been homeless anyway" argument, [2015] 18 JHL 116
Matt Hutchings has written an article for Journal of Housing Law on the Supreme Court ruling in Haile v Waltham Forest LBC concerning whether a council was entitled to find an individual intentionally homeless although she 'would have become homeless anyway'.
1st July 2015
Judicial Review as Sliding Scales, (2015) Judicial Review 20:3, 152-156
11th June 2015
Matt Hutchings discusses the Supreme Court's interpretation of vulnerability in relation to homelessness in the three linked appeals of Hotak, Kanu and Johnson.
On 13 May, in three appeals about priority need for the homeless (Hotak, Kanu and Johnson [2015] UKSC 30; [2015] 2 WLR 1341), the Supreme Court overturned the test laid down 16 years previously, used by local authorities to decide whether a homeless person is "vulnerable" and so in priority need of accommodation.
The court ruled that the correct comparison is with an "ordinary person" so that the correct test is: significantly more vulnerable than an ordinary person, if homeless.
Legal context
Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 contains the homelessness legislation. Section 189(1)(c) provides that:
"(1) The following have a priority need for accommodation... (c) a person who is vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical disability or other special reason, or with whom such a person resides or might reasonably be expected to reside."
Having a priority need is a necessary condition for being owed a number of housing duties, including the main housing duty in section 193(2).
In R v Camden LBC, ex p. Pereira (1998) 31 HLR 317, at p.330 Hobhouse LJ gave guidance as to the application of the vulnerability test, as follows:
"when homeless, less able to fend for himself than an ordinary homeless person so that injury or detriment to him will result when a less vulnerable man would be able to cope without harmful effects."
The history of the post-Pereira case law leading up to the Supreme Court decision may be viewed as a cautionary tale about the dangers of judicial glossing of statutory wording. It is doubtful Hobhouse LJ intended the above to be any more than practical guidance. However, in numerous subsequent cases his judgment was construed as if it was a statute and (despite judicial protestations to the contrary) elevated into the substitute "Pereira test".
The comparator issue
The main difficulty lay in the use of the comparator, the "ordinary homeless person". As verified by statistics produced by charities assisting the homeless, homeless people were likely to suffer from mental and physical ill health. A comparison with an ordinary homeless person therefore produced a "super-vulnerability test": more vulnerable than the vulnerable.
Over the intervening period since Pereira, a number of factors combined to put pressure on local authorities, particularly those in London, to refuse the main housing duty where they could: the scarcity of social housing, benefit cuts and cuts in grant funding. Thus, there was an upwards pressure on the threshold that had to be crossed in order to be considered "vulnerable".
At the Supreme Court hearing, counsel for the interveners, Shelter and Crisis, showed the court examples of decisions in which homeless applicants with depression and suicidal tendencies, or those who had suffered from serious abuse when homeless, were denied priority need status on the basis that they were no worse off than many actual homeless people.
At paragraph 56, Lord Neuberger stated: "if the comparison is with the ordinary actual homeless person, then ... as Justice Sedley pointed out in R v Hammersmith & Fulham London Borough Council, Ex p Fleck (1997) 30 HLR 679, 681, there would be a real risk that 'a sick and vulnerable individual (and I do not use the word "vulnerable" in its statutory sense) is going to be put out on the streets', which he described as a 'reproach to a society that considers itself to be civilised'."
At paragraph 60, Lord Neuberger gave short shrift to the argument that Parliament had implicitly approved the previous case law by not legislating to reverse it.
As Baroness Hale stated at paragraph 91 (agreeing with the majority on this issue): "we had reached the point where decision-makers were saying, of people who clearly had serious mental or physical disabilities, that 'you are not vulnerable, because you are no more vulnerable than the usual run of street homeless people in our locality'."
The family support issue
The other main issue, raised in the Hotak and Kanu cases, was whether support and care provided by a third party, such as a family member, was relevant to whether the applicant was "vulnerable".
The main argument advanced against taking such support into account was what might be described as the "bad brother" anomaly. In short, the "good brother" offering to support his ill sibling, so that he was protected from harm when homeless, would thereby deny both of them priority need; whereas the "bad brother" unwilling to support his ill sibling would thereby be rewarded by both of them qualifying for priority need status.
However, there was a more powerful argument for taking such support into account. This might be described as the "magic pill" argument. If an applicant's illness can be satisfactorily treated by medication, it seems counter-intuitive to treat him as vulnerable. The problem then becomes one of drawing a principled line. Lord Neuberger stated for the majority at paragraph 64:
"Once one accepts that point, it is very hard to see any logical reason for ignoring any support or assistance which an applicant would receive when homeless."
The Supreme Court's answers
The court decided unanimously that the Pereira test was wrong. The correct test is "significantly more vulnerable than ordinarily vulnerable" and the correct comparator is an ordinary person: see paragraphs 53, 57-59. Baroness Hale summarised this at paragraph 93: "more at risk of harm from being without accommodation than an ordinary person would be."
The court, by a majority, decided that third party support could be taken into account, but subject to the caveats that: (i) the local authority must be satisfied that, as a matter of fact, the third party will provide such support on a consistent and predictable basis (paragraph 65), (ii) the mere fact that such support will be available may not remove the applicant's vulnerability (paragraph 69) and (iii) there is no presumption that a family member will do what it is reasonable to expect him to do (paragraph 70). Baroness Hale dissented, reasoning that the appropriate dividing line was between support provided pursuant to a statutory obligation and other support (paragraph 94 onwards).
Future issues
It remains to be seen what local authorities' policy response to this judgment will be. A substantial change in the practice of vulnerability decision making will be required, and this is likely to be accompanied by other homelessness prevention and housing related support initiatives.
What is unlikely to be a viable option is to seek to erect a new comparator by putting too much weight on the word "significantly" more vulnerable within Lord Neuberger's judgment. This would amount to another gloss and tend to reintroduce the Pereira comparator through the back door.
Matt Hutchings is a barrister practising from Cornerstone Barristers. He represented interveners Crisis and Shelter in the three appeals.
This article was published in Local Government Lawyer.
26th May 2015
Matt Hutchings discusses the Supreme Court's interpretation of vulnerability in Hotak, Kanu and Johnson
On 13 May, in three appeals about priority need for the homeless (Hotak, Kanu, and Johnson [2015] UKSC 30), the Supreme Court overturned the test used by local authorities for 16 years to decide whether a homeless person is 'vulnerable' and so in priority need of accommodation.
The court ruled that the correct comparison is with an 'ordinary person' so that the test is 'significantly more vulnerable' than an ordinary person. It also gave short shrift to the argument that parliament had implicitly approved the previous case law by not legislating to reverse it.
The Supreme Court agreed there should be a substantial modification of the principles in the leading Court of Appeal cases, Pereira and Osmani. The history of the case law leading up to the Supreme Court decision may be viewed as a cautionary tale about the dangers of judicial glossing of statutory wording. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 contains the homelessness legislation. Section 189(1)(c) provides that: '(1) The following have a priority need for accommodation... (c) a person who is vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical disability or other special reason, or with whom such a person resides or might reasonably be expected to reside'.
In Pereira (1998), Lord Justice Hobhouse gave guidance as to the application of this test, as follows: 'when homeless, less able to fend for himself than an ordinary homeless person so that injury or detriment to him will result when a less vulnerable man would be able to cope without harmful effects.'
It is doubtful Hobhouse LJ intended this to be any more than practical guidance. However, in numerous subsequent cases his judgment was construed as if it was a statute and (despite judicial protestations to the contrary) elevated into the substitute 'Pereira test'.
The main difficulty lay in the use of the comparator, the 'ordinary homeless person'. Statistics showed that actual ordinary homeless persons were likely to suffer from mental and physical ill health. A comparison with an ordinary homeless person therefore produced a 'super-vulnerability test': more vulnerable than the vulnerable.
At the Supreme Court hearing, counsel for the interveners, Shelter and Crisis, showed examples of decisions in which homeless applicants with depression and suicidal tendencies, or those who had suffered from serious abuse when homeless, were denied priority need status on the basis that they were no worse off than many actual homeless people.
At paragraph 56, Lord Neuberger hit the nail on the head, stating: 'if the comparison is with the ordinary actual homeless person, then ... as Justice Sedley pointed out in R v Hammersmith & Fulham London Borough Council, Ex p Fleck (1997) 30 HLR 679, 681, there would be a real risk that "a sick and vulnerable individual (and I do not use the word "vulnerable" in its statutory sense) is going to be put out on the streets", which he described as a "reproach to a society that considers itself to be civilised"'.
This article was published in Solicitors Journal.
20th May 2015
Matt Hutchings comments on the Supreme Court's decision to uphold an appellant's challenge in the case of Haile v London Borough of Waltham Forest.
Click here to read the article in full.
19th May 2015
Matt Hutchings discusses the implications of a Supreme Court ruling concerning the protection of single homeless people.
Last week, in three appeals about priority need for the homeless (Hotak, Kanu and Johnson [2015] UKSC 30), the Supreme Court overturned the test used by local authorities for 16 years to decide whether a homeless person is 'vulnerable' and so in priority need of accommodation. The previous test had put the bar impossibly high for the vast majority of single homeless applicants to get temporary housing. This was a particular problem in London and the South East, where local authorities took a hard line.
Matt represented interveners Crisis and Shelter in the three appeals
'This ruling represents a major step in tackling the injustice faced by so many single homeless people in England today,' said Jon Sparkes, chief executive of Crisis.
"During our intervention in this case, the Court heard evidence of just how horrific a homeless person's life has to be before they qualify for council help. The average age of death for a homeless person is just 47; they are over nine times more likely to commit suicide and 13 times more likely to be a victim of violence. It's a scandal that someone facing this kind of life can be told they're not vulnerable enough for help.
The reality is that anyone sleeping on the streets is vulnerable, and we applaud today's ruling for making it easier for people to get help. The Court is also clear that while councils are often under huge financial strain, this must not be used as an excuse for avoiding their legal duties."
Jon Sparkes, Crisis
Under previous guidance laid down by the Court of Appeal in 1998, a homeless person seeking to convince a local authority that he or she was vulnerable had to prove that they were worse off than an 'ordinary homeless person'. This became known as 'the Pereira test', after the name of the leading Court of Appeal case. The Supreme Court ruled that this was wrong and the correct comparison is with an 'ordinary person'. It also gave short shrift to the argument that Parliament had implicitly approved the previous case law by not legislating to reverse it.
The Supreme Court decision is a welcome reminder that the UK's highest court will not shrink from giving effect to what it regards as the correct meaning of an Act of Parliament, even if an incorrect reading has been accepted for years. As a QC (who shall remain nameless) recently told me: once you are before the Supreme Court 'all bets are off'.
Now for the legal details. Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 contains the homelessness legislation. Section 189(1)(c) provides that:
"(1) The following have a priority need for accommodation—
... (c) a person who is vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical disability or other special reason, or with whom such a person resides or might reasonably be expected to reside".
In Pereira (1998) the Court of Appeal gave guidance as to the application of this test, as follows:
'...when homeless, less able to fend for himself than an ordinary homeless person so that injury or detriment to him will result when a less vulnerable man would be able to cope without harmful effects.'
In numerous subsequent cases this judgment was construed as if it was the Act of Parliament and (despite judicial protestations to the contrary) elevated into a substitute test, 'the Pereira test'. As the respondent local authorities told the Supreme Court, it had been followed by the Court of Appeal on 20 occasions. So, they argued, it was too late to change it.
The main difficulty lay in the use of the comparator, the 'ordinary homeless person'. Statistics showed that actual ordinary homeless persons were likely to suffer from mental and physical ill health. A comparison with an ordinary homeless person therefore produced a 'super-vulnerability test': more vulnerable than the vulnerable.
At the Supreme Court hearing, counsel for interveners Shelter and Crisis showed the court examples of decisions in which homeless applicants with depression and suicidal tendencies or who had suffered from serious abuse when homeless were denied priority need status on the basis that they were no worse off than many actual homeless people.
At para 56 Lord Neuberger hit the nail on the head, stating:
'...if the comparison is with the ordinary actual homeless person, then ... as Sedley J pointed out in R v Hammersmith & Fulham London Borough Council, Ex p Fleck (1997) 30 HLR 679 , 681, there would be a real risk that 'a sick and vulnerable individual (and I do not use the word "vulnerable" in its statutory sense) is going to be put out on the streets', which he described as a 'reproach to a society that considers itself to be civilised'.'
The Supreme Court recognised the injustice, and acted decisively to correct it.
This article was published on The Justice Gap.
19th May 2015
Matt Hutchings comments on the case of Hotak, Johnson and Kanu v London Borough of Southwark & Anor [2015] and the implications for local authorities when reviewing applicants for accommodation.
Click here to read the article in full.
13th May 2015
Matt Hutchings comments on a Supreme Court ruling concerning the vulnerability test used by local authorities when reviewing applicants for council accommodation. Matt represented the charities Shelter and Crisis in the case.
Click here to read the article in full.
1st December 2012
1st January 2007
Fairness: Meeting the Standard (2007) 10 JHL 14
Regularly provides strategic advice to Government across a wide range of functions.
Highly regarded trainer and lecturer to Government and Development sectors.
Case: Public Law and Judicial Review, Local Government
Red light to litigation gives green light to Camden cyclists
27th March 2020
R (Imperial London Hotels Limited) v London Borough of Camden
....Case: Public Law and Judicial Review, Housing
10th December 2019
R(Z) v Hackney LBC and Agudas Israel Housing Association [2019] PTSR 985 (Div Ct) and [2019] EWCA Civ 1099
....Case: Commercial and Regulatory
8th May 2019
Merthyr (South Wales) Limited v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2019] EWCA Civ 526
....News: Planning and Environment, Housing
Local authorities’ role in housing supply
18th February 2019
By Matt Hutchings QC - This article was previously published in the Local Government Lawyer Local authorities and the housing crisis In her foreword to the housing White Paper Fixing our broken housing....News: Public Law and Judicial Review, Housing
Is housing allocation “within the ambit” of article 8?
26th September 2018
Matt Hutchings QC concludes that the jury is still out on this question, which may well need to be decided in the not too distant future. Why does it matter? The prohibition....Case: Commercial and Regulatory
Judge finds that open cast mine case is open and shut
27th June 2018
IntroductionThis case - Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council v Blackstone (South Wales) Ltd [2018] EWHC 1506 (QB) - concerns a major opencast coal mine at Ffos-y-fran, on the outskirts of....Case: Public Law and Judicial Review, Planning and Environment
Camden successfully defends CPO of Bacton Low Rise Estate
2nd November 2017
In a judgment handed down on 26 September 2017, Mr Justice Dove: • Summarised the principles applicable to CPO challenges• Rejected grounds based on technical procedural breaches which had not caused....Case: Public Law and Judicial Review, Housing
HHJ Luba QC upholds out of London discharge of duty
6th October 2017
In an important decision for local authorities, on 6 October 2017 HHJ Luba QC upheld the London Borough of Brent's decision to discharge the main housing duty it owed to....News: Public Law and Judicial Review, Property
Property Law Journal - Enforcement of Planning Obligations
26th September 2017
Matt Hutchings QC has written an article on enforcement of planning obligations for the Property Law Journal. Click here to view the article. ....Case: Public Law and Judicial Review, Housing
High Court Judge Refuses Permission for Sex Offender’s Challenge
25th September 2017
At a hearing on Friday 22 September 2017, Gilbart J refused permission for Michael Goldsworthy, a convicted sex offender, to sue the London Borough of Richmond on Thames for damages....News: Housing
12th September 2017
Matt Hutchings QC joins a panel of speakers for a discussion on topical housing issues for an episode of Unreliable Evidence on BBC Radio 4. The panel considers whether the....News: Public Law and Judicial Review, Housing
Matt Hutchings QC speaks about housing law and policy on BBC Radio 4
8th September 2017
Matt took part in an expert panel discussing topical housing law issues with Clive Anderson. The discussion will be broadcast as part of BBC 4's Unreliable Evidence series on Wednesday 13....Case: Housing
High Court judgment sounds warning note for housing authorities
11th August 2017
A judgment handed down on 10 August 2017 by Popplewell J sounds a warning for local authorities in relation to their procedures for managing temporary accommodation. Dacorum Borough Council housed a....News: Public Law and Judicial Review, Housing
Inside Housing - High Court orders leaseholders to sell affordable housing back to council
28th July 2017
Inside Housing has reported on Matt Hutchings QC's High Court affordable housing battle. Click here to view the article.....Case: Public Law and Judicial Review, Housing
28th July 2017
In October 2013, pursuant to a decision by its Cabinet, the London Borough of Ealing amended its housing allocation policy by creating a "working household priority scheme" ("the WHPS"). Under....Case: Public Law and Judicial Review, Property, Commercial and Regulatory
Southwark Gets Tough on Affordable Housing Pledges Again
14th July 2017
Following litigation brought in the High Court, Chancery Division, the London Borough of Southwark has secured the return of 9 more designated affordable housing units to affordable housing use. This follows....News:
Party for new Cornerstone Silks
26th June 2017
Paul Shaderevian, Tom Cosgrove and Matt Hutchings celebrated their QC appointments at a party held at Tallow Chandlers Hall in the City on 22 June. Matt's wife Cassandra played Rhapsody from the....Case: Public Law and Judicial Review
Accommodation approved by probation officer not the same as prison
18th May 2017
Rageb v Kensington and Chelsea RLBC [2017] EWCA 360 A prisoner was released on licence to supported accommodation run by St Mungo's ("the Hostel"). It was a condition of his licence....News: Public Law and Judicial Review, Housing
Judical Review - The Right to Respect for the Home: Privacy's Poor Relation?
10th May 2017
Matt Hutchings QC discusses article 8 horizontality following McDonald in the Supreme Court, please click here to view the full article.....Case: Public Law and Judicial Review, Housing, Property, Commercial and Regulatory
Southwark Gets Tough on Affordable Housing Pledges
24th April 2017
Following litigation brought in the High Court, Chancery Division, the London Borough of Southwark has secured the return of 17 designated affordable housing units to affordable housing use. The 17 flats....Case: Public Law and Judicial Review, Planning and Environment, Property, Commercial and Regulatory
Redress for abuse of the planning system
11th April 2017
Master Davison refuses to strike out claim alleging planning fraud by religious charity Chalfont St Peter Parish Council v Holy Cross Sisters Trustees Incorporated Queen's Bench Division, 10 April 2017 This claim concerns....News: Public Law and Judicial Review, Planning and Environment
13th February 2017
Matt Hutchings, Paul Shadarevian and Tom Cosgrove have been formally appointed Queen's Counsel following a ceremony at Westminster earlier today. Click here for further information on their appointments. ....Case: Public Law and Judicial Review, Housing
Kensington and Chelsea wins homelessness dispute with Ealing
16th January 2017
High Court holds that 1985 case of O'Brian is no longer good law. In a judgment delivered on 13 January 2017 HHJ Karen Walden-Smith decided that a local housing authority to....News: Public Law and Judicial Review, Planning and Environment, Housing, Property, Commercial and Regulatory
Cornerstone Barristers announces three new silks
12th January 2017
Cornerstone Barristers is proud to announce that Paul Shadarevian, Matt Hutchings and Tom Cosgrove are to be appointed Queen's Counsel. Paul Shadarevian has extensive expertise across all areas of planning law,....News: Public Law and Judicial Review, Licensing
Practical Law - Hemming and others v Westminster City Council
12th December 2016
Philip Kolvin QC and Matt Hutchings have contributed to a briefing published by Practical Law on the fee structure of local authority licence schemes under the Services Directive. The piece....Case: Public Law and Judicial Review, Licensing
Court of Justice finds in favour of sex shops
17th November 2016
In the latest twist in the sex shop licensing litigation, R(Hemming & ors) v Westminster City Council, on 16 November 2016 the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered....News: Public Law and Judicial Review
Judicial Review - Delegation of Functions - Principles and Recent Perspectives
6th July 2016
Matt Hutchings of Cornerstone Barristers has written an article for Judicial Review on the delegation of functions by public bodies. The article focuses on three aspects of delegation considered in case....News: Public Law and Judicial Review, Property, Commercial and Regulatory
Matthew Hutchings of Cornerstone Barristers appointed to Junior Counsel to the Crown A Panel
24th June 2016
Cornerstone Barristers is pleased to announce that Matt Hutchings has been appointed to the Junior Counsel to the Crown – A Panel. Matt's appointment will last for a period of five....News: Public Law and Judicial Review, Property, Commercial and Regulatory
No Proportionality Assessment in Private Sector Possession Claims
15th June 2016
The Supreme Court has today issued a landmark ruling which decisively prevents residential tenants and other occupiers in the private sector from raising article 8 defences to possession proceedings brought....News: Public Law and Judicial Review, Licensing
Cornerstone and Gosschalks team in Court of Justice of the European Union
2nd June 2016
On 1 June 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union heard argument in the case of Hemming, the leading case on licensing fees. The Supreme Court referred the case....News: Public Law and Judicial Review, Housing
Cornerstone Housing Newsletter - May 2016
4th May 2016
The latest edition of the Cornerstone Housing Newsletter includes: Message from the Heads of Team – Kuljit Bhogal and Kelvin Rutledge QC Hotak, Johnson & Kanu one year on – Kelvin Rutledge....Case: Public Law and Judicial Review, Property
Matt and Jenny aim for Supreme three in a row
30th March 2016
In R(N) v Lewisham LBC [2015] AC 1259, Matt Hutchings and Jennifer Oscroft represented the successful local authorities. They convinced the Supreme Court that temporary housing for homeless applicants was not "occupied as a dwelling" and therefore local authorities and their providers could carry out evictions without court orders.
....News: Public Law and Judicial Review, Licensing, Inquests and Inquiries
Parliamentary Inquiry into Prostitution
21st March 2016
A team from Cornerstone Barristers is advising a national feminist organisation appearing in an inquiry into prostitution. The Home Affairs Select Committee is conducting an inquiry into prostitution, and in particular....News: Public Law and Judicial Review, Housing, Health and Social Care
Cornerstone Housing Day 2015 - Presentations
3rd March 2016
Presentations from the Cornerstone Housing Day 2015 are now available to view on the newly launched Local Government Law.tv platform. Click the links below to view previews of the videos.News: Public Law and Judicial Review, Court of Protection, Health and Social Care
New Pan London Adult Safeguarding Policy Launched
10th February 2016
The keenly awaited new Pan London Adult Safeguarding Policy and Procedures was launched yesterday at a celebratory event at BMA House, Tavistock Square, London. The new policy aims to deliver consistency....News: Public Law and Judicial Review, Housing, Property, Health and Social Care
Cornerstone Housing Newsletter - October 2015
29th November 2015
The latest Cornerstone Housing Newsletter includes...News: Public Law and Judicial Review, Housing
Journal of Housing Law - Haile v Waltham Forest LBC
12th November 2015
Matt Hutchings has written an article for Journal of Housing Law on the Supreme Court ruling in Haile v Waltham Forest LBC concerning whether a council was entitled to find....News: Public Law and Judicial Review, Housing
Cornerstone Barristers Housing Newsletter - July 2015
23rd July 2015
The latest Cornerstone Barristers Housing Newsletter includes...News: Public Law and Judicial Review, Health and Social Care
Cornerstone Barristers awarded tender for adult safeguarding legal review
21st July 2015
Cornerstone Barristers is delighted to announce that it has succeeded in a tender to provide London authorities with a legal review of Pan London Adult Safeguarding Policy & Procedures.
....News: Public Law and Judicial Review, Housing
The Guardian - UK homeless no longer have to take 'almost impossible' accommodation test
13th June 2015
Matt Hutchings comments on a Supreme Court ruling concerning the vulnerability test used by local authorities when reviewing applicants for council accommodation. Matt represented the charities Shelter and Crisis in the case.
....News: Public Law and Judicial Review, Housing
Local Government Lawyer: The Supreme Court on vulnerability
11th June 2015
Matt Hutchings discusses the Supreme Court's interpretation of vulnerability in relation to homelessness in the three linked appeals of Hotak, Kanu and Johnson.
....News: Public Law and Judicial Review, Housing
Solicitors Journal - No such thing as an 'ordinary homeless person'
26th May 2015
Matt Hutchings discusses the Supreme Court's interpretation of vulnerability in Hotak, Kanu and Johnson
....News: Public Law and Judicial Review, Housing
20th May 2015
Matt Hutchings comments on the Supreme Court's decision to uphold an appellant's challenge in the case of Haile v London Borough of Waltham Forest. Click here to read the article in....News: Public Law and Judicial Review, Housing
Haile V London Borough of Waltham Forest [2015] UKSC 34
20th May 2015
Fresh from the Judgment in Hotak v London Borough of Southwark; Kanu v London Borough of Southwark; Johnson v Solihull MBC [2015] UKSC 30 last Wednesday the Supreme Court have....Case: Public Law and Judicial Review, Housing
New Law Journal - Supreme Court broadens meaning of "vulnerable"
19th May 2015
Matt Hutchings comments on the case of Hotak, Johnson and Kanu v London Borough of Southwark & Anor [2015] and the implications for local authorities when reviewing applicants for accommodation. Click....News: Public Law and Judicial Review, Housing
The Justice Gap: Supreme Court ruling to protect single homeless people
15th May 2015
Matt Hutchings discusses the implications of a Supreme Court ruling concerning the protection of single homeless people.
Last week, in three appeals about priority need for the homeless (Hotak, Kanu and Johnson [2015] UKSC 30), the Supreme Court overturned the test used by local authorities for 16 years to decide whether a homeless person is 'vulnerable' and so in priority need of accommodation. The previous test had put the bar impossibly high for the vast majority of single homeless applicants to get temporary housing. This was a particular problem in London and the South East, where local authorities took a hard line.
• Matt represented interveners Crisis and Shelter in the three appeals
•'This ruling represents a major step in tackling the injustice faced by so many single homeless people in England today,' said Jon Sparkes, chief executive of Crisis.
Case: Public Law and Judicial Review, Housing
Cornerstone note Supreme Court homelessness judgment
13th May 2015
SummaryThe Supreme Court has this morning handed down judgment in three conjoined appeals - Hotak v London Borough of Southwark; Kanu v London Borough of Southwark; Johnson v Solihull Metropolitan....Case: Public Law and Judicial Review, Licensing
Hemming – Supreme Court Judgment Answers Questions And Raises Others
29th April 2015
The sex fee wars are set to continue following the long-awaited ruling of the Supreme Court. The Court has cast doubt on the legality of Westminster City Council's charging regime....Case: Public Law and Judicial Review, Housing
Cornerstone Double Triple Whammy at Supreme Court Today
15th December 2014
Watch live coverage of a Supreme Court intervention which sees Kelvin Rutledge QC, Ashley Underwood QC and Catherine Rowlands acting for the Respondents, Solihull MBC and LB of Southwark in three appeals, with Bryan McGuire QC, Matt Hutchings and Jennifer Oscroft representing Shelter and Crisis, who are intervening.
....Case: Public Law and Judicial Review, Housing
Cornerstone Trio in Supreme Court Triple Whammy
25th November 2014
Bryan McGuire QC, Matt Hutchings and Jennifer Oscroft are instructed to represent Shelter and Crisis in a Supreme Court intervention.
In the three appeals of Johnson v Solihull, Hotak v Southwark and Kanu v Southwark, the homeless applicants challenge the Pereira test of vulnerability. The appeals have been listed before the Supreme Court on 15-17 December.
....Case: Public Law and Judicial Review, Property
Lewisham, Newham and Cornerstone team win in Supreme Court
11th November 2014
On 12th November, the Supreme Court handed down judgment in the linked appeals of R(CN) v Lewisham LBC and R(ZH) v Newham LBC [2014] UKSC 62.
At the centre of these cases was section 3 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. The section requires landlords and licensors of dwellings to recover possession through court proceedings. This rule is subject to a list of specific exceptions in section 3A. For example, there are exceptions for accommodation provided under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and for local authority hostels.
....Case: Property, Commercial and Regulatory
Landlord defends £1m claim for damages arising out of fire in restaurant
8th October 2014
Stratton v Patel [2014] EWHC 2677 (TCC)
Restaurant premises were damaged by a fire and leaks which occurred during development works carried out above them by building contractors employed by the landlord.
....Case: Public Law and Judicial Review
R(Powell) v Brighton Marina Co Ltd [2014] EWHC 2136 (Admin)
17th July 2014
Challenge to outer harbour development at Brighton Marina on basis that the works are ultra vires the Brighton Marina Act 1968. Whether the requirement that a JR claim form be filed "promptly" offends EU law. The case is ongoing.
....Case: Public Law and Judicial Review, Housing
Hines v Lambeth LBC [2014] EWCA Civ 660; Times June 19, 2014, CA
17th July 2014
The Court of Appeal accepts Matt's "startlingly simple" submission that the welfare of the child cannot be a paramount consideration in relation to his mother's right of residence.....Case: Public Law and Judicial Review
R(Powell) V Brighton Marina Company Ltd & Ors
18th June 2014
High Court hears challenge to huge marina development and considers whether requirement of promptness in JR contrary to EU law. The Brighton Marina Company has planning permission for a large residential....Case: Commercial and Regulatory
$1.9 million damages awarded to Matt Hutchings's client in commercial claim
7th March 2014
Matt Hutchings acted for Virulite LLC which recovered damages of US$1.9 million after a 10-day trial. The case concerned termination of an agreement for the exclusive US distribution of the Virulite....Case: Public Law and Judicial Review, Property
Supreme Court to hear homelessness challenge
7th March 2014
R(CN) v Lewisham LBC and R(ZH) v Newham LBC have been listed to be heard by the Supreme Court in April. The Appellants seek to overturn Mohamed v Manek and....Case: Commercial and Regulatory
Virulite LLC v Virulite Distribution Ltd & or [2014] EWHC 366 (QB), QBD
27th February 2014
Termination of agreement for exclusive distribution of a medical device in the US. Effect of "no variation" clauses, promissory estoppel. Assessment of loss where the device had not in fact....Case: Public Law and Judicial Review, Housing
Court of Appeal confirms limited power of county court in s.204 appeals
8th November 2013
LB Ealing v P, 5 November 2013 Arden, Sullivan and Davis LJJ In allowing the appeal brought by LB Ealing, the Court of Appeal emphasized that the role of the county court....Case: Public Law and Judicial Review, Property
Supreme Court to consider whether possession proceedings required for Part 7 temporary accommodation
5th November 2013
The Supreme Court has given permission to appeal the Court of Appeal judgment in R(CN) v Lewisham; R(ZH) v Newham [2013] WLR(D) 297 (follow this link to the CA judgment).....Case: Public Law and Judicial Review, Property
Article 8 does not require possession proceedings in respect of interim temporary accommodation
16th July 2013
In a judgment handed down today in R(CN) v LB Lewisham; R (ZH) v LB Newham, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government intervening, the Court of Appeal has....Case: Public Law and Judicial Review, Property
CN V LB Lewisham And ZH V LB Newham
11th July 2013
In R(CN) v LB Lewisham; R (ZH) v LB Newham, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government intervening, the Court of Appeal has affirmed the decision in Mohammed v....Case: Property
16th May 2013
Matt Hutchings successfully defends a decision of William Hanson, sitting as an Adjudicator to HM Land Registry in Currey v Fletcher [2013], Chancery Division, 15th May 2013. The Adjudicator produced a....Case: Public Law and Judicial Review, Property
27th March 2013
Mohamed v Manek and Desnousse v Newham LBC establish that a licensor of temporary accommodation, pending inquiries into a homelessness application, does not need a court order to evict the....Case: Public Law and Judicial Review, Housing
PM announces stop to “soft touch” approach to housing and benefits for immigrants
25th March 2013
The proposed measures announced by the PM during his speech on immigration today include:Case: Public Law and Judicial Review, Housing
Solihull v Hickin and Thurrock v West in action: Article 8 and “second successors”
10th December 2012
In Kensington and Chelsea RBC v Kent & ors, District Judge Sheldon, applying Thurrock v West, found that a local authority's claim for possession against "second successors" did not constitute....Case: Public Law and Judicial Review
R (Siwak) v LB Newham [2012] EWHC 1520 (Admin); [2012] EqLR 670, QBD
1st June 2012
COURT REFUSES TO MICROMANAGE EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Judgment providing a helpful overview of the PSED and consultation obligations. High Court Judge states that it would be undemocratic for the courts to....Case: Public Law and Judicial Review
Local authority challenged on cuts to legal advice services
29th May 2012
Bryan McGuire QC and Matt Hutchings appeared in the Administrative Court last week defending the London Borough of Newham in a judicial review claim that it had unlawfully cut and....Case: Public Law and Judicial Review
12th March 2012
LB Croydon v Aaron Kennedy Tower Bridge Magistrates granted a lifelong ASBO against a 19 year old ringleader intimidating Croydon residents and shopkeepers. None of the victims was prepared to give....Case: Public Law and Judicial Review
20th February 2012
Matt Hutchings and Bryan McGuire QC have submitted an application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court in the above case on behalf of Mr Tiller, who was also....Case: Commercial and Regulatory
LB Southwark v Connor & ors [2011] EWHC 685, [2012] Env LR 1, QBD
1st January 2012
£5 million civil fraud/unlawful waste disposal case. 25 day trial against leading silk. Vast majority of claim against my client dismissed. Interim injunctions discharged.See full text of case at: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/685.html ....Case: Property
Tiensia v Vision Enterprises Ltd (t/a Universal Estates)
29th November 2010
Tiensia v Vision Enterprises Ltd (t/a Universal Estates) [2010] EWCA Civ 1224 Court of Appeal: Thorpe, Sedley and Rimer LJJ This was a test case on the operation of the tenancy deposits....Case: Public Law and Judicial Review, Housing
1st January 2010
R(Weaver) v L&Q [2010] 1 WLR 363; [2010] PTSR 1; [2009] 4 All ER 865; [2009] HRLR 29; [2009] UKHRR 1371; [2009] HLR 40; [2009] BLGR 962; Times 26 August....Red light to litigation gives green light to Camden cyclists
27th March 2020
R (Imperial London Hotels Limited) v London Borough of Camden
....020 7242 4986 or 0333 240 0591
London: 2-3 Gray's Inn Square, WC1R 5JH
Birmingham: Edmund House, 12-22 Newhall Street, B3 3EW
Cardiff: Falcon Drive, Cardiff Bay, Cardiff, Mid Glamorgan, CF10 4RU
DX: LDE 316 (Chancery Lane)
