Expertise

• Housing
  • Overview
  • Cases
  • News

  Matthew has extensive experience in housing law and is a founder member of the Social Housing Law Association. He advises and represents local authorities, registered providers and tenants of all types up and down the country in statutory homelessness appeals, possession claims, human rights, discrimination and Equality Act 2010 challenges, statutory succession and right to buy proceedings, claims and injunctions based on anti-social behaviour, unlawful eviction and harassment claims, disrepair, succession, deposits, and EPA 1990 matters.

  Cases:

  Yemshaw v Hounslow LBC [2011] UKSC 3. The Supreme Court held that the term ‘domestic violence’ in section 177(1) of the Housing Act 1996 included physical violence, threatening or intimidating behaviour and any other form of abuse which, directly or indirectly, might give rise to the risk of harm.

  Yemshaw v Hounslow LBC [2009] EWCA Civ 1543. The meaning of ‘domestic violence’ in section 177(1) of the Housing Act 1996.

  R (McGarrett) v Kingston Crown Court [2009] EWHC 1776 (Admin). The Divisional Court held that the purpose of an ASBO was not to punish, and the terms of the order had to be proportionate to the risk to be guarded against. Further, the order had to be both necessary and justified.

  Vesely v David Levy & Others [2008] L & TR 9. Whether a fixed contribution towards joint household expenditure was capable of amounting to rent, and whether the purpose of the arrangement between the parties and the surrounding circumstances gave rise to the inference that there was an intention to create a landlord and tenant relationship between the parties.

  London & Quadrant Housing Trust v Ansell [2007] HLR 37. Part of the ‘tolerated trespasser’ litigation. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was granted to the Appellant, and the case was settled on favourable terms shortly before the final hearing.

  • Dudley v Mailley: Succession rights under the spotlight26 Feb 2024

  • Housing Newsletter | February 202426 Feb 2024
  • Cornerstone Barristers retains top ranking in legal directories for Social Housing25 Oct 2023
  • Cornerstone Barristers ranked as a leading set by Chambers & Partners 202419 Oct 2023
  • Cornerstone Housing Day presentation slides10 Oct 2023
  • Cornerstone Barristers shortlisted in the Legal 500 Bar Awards 202206 Jul 2022
  • New ‘Right to Regenerate’ proposals aim to turn derelict buildings into homes and community assets11 Feb 2021
• Property
  • Overview
  • Cases
  • News

  Matthew’s property practice incorporates both real property and residential/commercial landlord and tenant. He has particular expertise in fields such as adverse possession, boundary disputes, easements and covenants, Land Registry disputes, mortgages, trusts of land and building disputes.

  He combines his commercial and property expertise to provide highly effective representation in business tenancy renewal negotiations and disputes. He also acts for landlords and tenants in forfeiture/possession proceedings, dilapidations/disrepair disputes and service charge disputes, including more complex matters heard in the High Court.

  In addition, he acts for landlords and leaseholders in claims for new leases and enfranchisement under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, including disputes as to premium and the terms of new leases, and the rights of landlords following enfranchisement.

  Cases:

  Iwaskiewicz v Suhitharan – Ref/2022/0396. A successful claim for rectification in the First Tier Tribunal, Property Chamber.

  GBQ Investments Ltd v (1) Mortgage Express, (2) NRAM Limited [2018] EWHC 2536 (Ch). An ongoing case concerning the equity of redemption in relation to a portfolio of mortgaged properties.

  Parkes v Wilkes [2017] EWHC 1556 (Ch). A High Court appeal in a case concerning the intention of the parties behind the purchase of the freehold interest pursuant to the collective enfranchisement provisions under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

  Chubb & Bruce v Dean & Anr [2013] EWHC 1282 (Ch). An application for an order for sale in a mortgage case dealing with (i) the applicable rate of interest due, (ii) whether matters gave rise to an ‘unfair relationship’ between the parties under s140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and (iii) appropriation.

  Patel v Singh & Anor [2009] EWHC 2980 (Fam). A successful claim under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 lasting more than three weeks in the High Court.

  • Rushmer and others v Central Bedfordshire Council27 Feb 2024
  • High Court provides an overview of the commons registration system23 Jun 2023

  • Cornerstone Barristers shortlisted in the Legal 500 Bar Awards 202206 Jul 2022
• Public Law and Judicial Review
  • Overview

  Matthew has considerable experience representing local authorities and private individuals in public law proceedings. He has particular expertise in the judicial review of decisions concerning the allocation and management of social housing, provision of accommodation for the homeless pending review, and the assessment of and provision for care and support needs under the Care Act 2014.

  Matthew also has extensive experience in defending and pursuing human rights, public law and administrative law challenges to public authority possession claims. He is well-versed in the disability provisions of the Equality Act 2010 and discrimination claims of social housing tenants.

  More recently, he has been involved in the following cases:

  R (on the application of AF) v Milton Keynes Council [2023] EWHC 163 (Admin). Whether carrying out an age assessment after the claimant had turned 18 years of age was academic.

  R (on the application of AYP) v Islington LBC [2022] 5 WLUK 2018. A judicial review case concerning an abbreviated age assessment and interim relief.

  R (on the application of Vincent Nolson) v Stevenage Borough Council [2020] EWCA Civ 379. The Court of Appeal considered the procedure for reviewing an application for interim relief in a claim for judicial review following a refusal of such interim relief on the papers. Matthew acted for the Respondent local authority.

  R (on the application of Bukartyk) v Welwyn Hatfield BC [2019] EWHC 3480 (Admin). A successful claim for judicial review to quash the Council’s decision to refuse to accept a fresh homelessness application under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996.

  R (on the application of McGarrett) v Kingston Crown Court [2009] EWHC 1776 (Admin). The Divisional Court held that the purpose of an ASBO was not to punish, and the terms of the order had to be proportionate to the risk to be guarded against. Further, the order had to be both necessary and justified.

• Commercial and Regulatory
  • Overview

  Matthew has wide-ranging commercial and general civil litigation experience with particular emphasis on agency disputes, consumer credit, enforcement of judgments, Inheritance Act 1975 claims, misrepresentation, partnership disputes, sale of goods and services, undue influence/duress, and interim relief applications including freezing and other injunctions.

  Recent work includes:

  • Advice in respect of the purchase of a gym franchise
  • Advice and representation in a fraudulent misrepresentation action in the High Court in relation to the sale of a property
  • Advice and drafting in an undue influence/breach of fiduciary duty claim in the High Court
  • Advice and representation in an application for security for costs in the High Court
  • Obtaining summary judgment in the High Court dismissing a substantial damages claim against a local authority
  • Advice and representation in a complex commercial fraud case