Matthew Wyard

Matthew is a judicial review specialist who routinely acts in a wide variety of judicial review proceedings both alone and as junior counsel. He is equally happy advising defendants on lawful decision making pre action as he is challenging public bodies on behalf of aggrieved claimants through litigation.

He is particularly experienced in education related judicial review and is developing a practice in commercial judicial review.

Cases of note:

• R(LS) v Somerset Council AC-2024-CDF-00013 – Represented the claimant in this judicial review pursuant to s42 of the Children and Families Act 2014 which settled the day before trial.
• R(EC and AC) v Hampshire County Council AC-2024-LON-002617 – Successfully secured the refusal of permission in this application for judicial review concerning breaches of s19 of the Education Act 1996, unlawful delegation pursuant to s42 of the Children and Families Act 2014 and a damages claim for numerous alleged breaches of the Human Rights Act 1998.
• R(MS) v Bradford Metropolitan City Council AC-2024-LDS-000182 – Advised and represented the defendant throughout in this application for judicial review for an alleged breach of Regulation 44 of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014.
• R(HM) v Oxfordshire County Council AC-2024-LON-003762 – Advised and represented the defendant in this application for judicial review alleging that the defendant had acted irrationality in not implementing an Education, Health and Care Plan in the way sought.
• R(Adams) v The Legal Ombudsman AC-2023-LDS-000015 – Successfully secured a refusal of permission at an oral permission hearing in an application pertaining to the dismissal of a complaint under Rules.4 and 5.7 of the Ombudsman Scheme.
• R(MA) v Essex County Council AC-2023-LON-002747 – Secured the refusal of permission to proceed within this ‘age assessment’ judicial review.
• R (Holroyd) v His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service AC-2024-MAN-00142 – Successfully secured the refusal of permission to proceed at an oral permission hearing in an application alleging breaches of Article 6 ECHR.

Much of Matthew’s Court of Protection practice falls under its property and affairs jurisdiction. He represents individuals, local authorities, the Public Guardian and professional deputies across the breadth of property and affairs matters. He is regularly sought after to bring or defend complex removal applications regarding attorneys and deputies (both lay and professional) but equally enjoys advising professional deputies on complex questions of estate management.

Cases of note:

• Re: AECO [2025] EWCOP 5 – Successfully represented the Public Guardian in its application to remove P’s mother as her deputy for contravention of her authority.
• The Public Guardian v (1) AB (2) MD – Following a 3-day trial Matthew secured a declaration that P lacked capacity to gift the proceeds from the sale of her property at the relevant time, as well as the revocation of a Lasting Power of Attorney following the unlawful gifting of the sale proceeds by an attorney to her husband.
• A v A Professional Deputy – Advised and represented a professional deputy in proceedings for their removal by P’s mother and a proposed replacement professional deputy. The matter settled at DRH.
• KSC v S Council – Successfully represented a local authority at trial defending an application to set aside a deputyship order (that Matthew had secured at trial year earlier).
• GB v SW – Advised and represented the defendant family member contesting the appointment of a sibling as lay deputy on the basis of concerns around financial abuse.
• Re: AA – Advised a foreign High Net Worth Individual in conference and writing on the domestic options available to them to protect the assets of an incapacitated family member, including the consideration of the settlement of a trust.
• Re: JS – Advised a professional deputy on the construction of an indemnity clause within a Periodical Payment Order arising from a £1.7million clinical negligence settlement and its relevance in the future management of P’s estate.

Matthew regularly represents the Official Solicitor, family members and local authorities in the range of health and welfare applications before the Court of Protection and has experience appearing in Tier 3 matters.

Cases of note:

• BC (through the Official Solicitor) v S Council – Represented the defendant local authority in a 2 day final hearing of a s21A challenge, successfully securing the court’s approval of its care plan to transfer P from a care home in Wales to one in England.
• E Council v CM (through the Official Solicitor) – Represented the local authority in tier 3 proceedings seeking to procure P’s return to the jurisdiction following her international abduction to Jamaica.
• H Council v JB (through the Official Solicitor) – Advised and represented the local authority in a section 16 application concerning P’s capacity to engage in sexual relations and make decisions concerning his education.
• D Council v DB (through the Official Solicitor) & Ors – Represented P’s husband in an application to set aside a without notice injunction that prohibited him from contacting P. The injunction was set aside and costs awarded in Matthew’s client’s favour.
• CE (through the Official Solicitor) v H Council – Represented P in a complex s21A application in circumstances where P’s diagnosis and prognosis was unclear, resulting in difficulty in identifying a suitable placement.
• PM v B Council & B CCG – Advised and represented the defendant local authority in s21A proceedings seeking to secure the placement of P in a specialist residential college and care home. It involved in depth consideration of the special educational needs regime and its interplay with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Matthew is a recognised expert in education law having been ranked for his education work in the directories from his first year of independent practice. Most of his education work focuses on judicial review or appeals to the Upper Tribunal, but he is equally happy to advise on issues of school governance and reorganisation, equality, data protection and in matters concerning further and higher education. He has particular expertise in the devolved education settlement in Wales.

Cases of note:

• Cardiff City Council v Mr and Mrs X  [2025] UKUT 68 (AAC) – Represented the respondent in the first Upper Tribunal appeal concerning the Additional Learning Needs and Wellbeing (Wales) Act 2018 (led by John Friel).
• MM (as alternative person to C) v Royal Borough of Greenwich [2024] PTSR 1452 – Successfully represented the appellant in the Upper Tribunal in the leading authority on the approach the First-tier Tribunal should take to the question of litigation capacity in SEN appeals.
• AB v Newport City Council  [2022] ELR 557 – Successfully represented the appellant in this Upper Tribunal appeal which confirmed the existence of a right of appeal to the Upper Tribunal against a review decision of SENTW.
• Nottinghamshire County Council v SF & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 226 – Successfully represented the respondent before the Court of Appeal in this appeal that considered the meaning of “necessary” in s37 of the Children and Families Act 2014 (led by Charlotte Hadfield)
• YMC v Office of Intercollegiate Studies – Settled the Statement of Facts and Grounds in what is thought to be the first judicial review brought against the Office of Intercollegiate Studies of the University of Cambridge.
• Re: BCC – Advised the proposer of a school re-organisation scheme seeking to change a school from single sex to co-educational and drafted various paperwork for the scheme.
• Re: O – Advised an inspection authority on the limits of its powers and the point when it became functus officio.

Matthew’s immigration practice focuses on asylum, human rights and national security in the Upper Tribunal and higher courts, as well as the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. He is familiar with closed material proceedings.

Cases of note:

• Re: Rwanda – Part of the counsel team (led by Kate Grange KC) quality assuring and providing operational advice to the Secretary of State for the Home Department during the implementation of the Safety of Rwanda (Immigration and Asylum) Act 2024.
• FA (Iran) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2024] EWCA Civ 149 – Sole counsel for the respondent before the Court of Appeal in this appeal considering whether the Upper Tribunal properly applied the country guidance on sur place activities to an asylum application.
• THTN (Vietnam) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] EWCA Civ 1222 – Represented the respondent in this appeal concerning the proper interpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision in AM (Zimbabwe) v SSHD and the remit of Article 1C(5) of the Refugee Convention (led by William Hansen).
• OA v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] UKUT 33 (IAC) – Represented the respondent in this country guidance appeal concerning conditions in IDP camps in Somalia (led by William Hansen).
• R (WRC) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – Represented the defendant in this judicial review challenge to the defendant’s amendment to the Immigration Rules which closed various Ukraine Visa Schemes (led by Jack Holborn)
• SS(India) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – Represented the respondent before the Court of Appeal in this appeal concerning the application of the Supreme Court’s guidance in AM (Zimbabwe) v SSHD (led by William Hansen).
• NS v Secretary of State for the Home Department – Represented the respondent in this Upper Tribunal appeal which considered whether the appellant fell into the definition of “foreign criminal” within s117D of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

Alongside his established public law practise, Matthew has a complementary practice in matters of town and country planning and public law related property matters. His sitting as a Chair in the Valuation Tribunal for England gives him a working knowledge of the law relating to ratings.

Cases of note:

• Land adjacent to HMP Garth and HMP Wymott – Represented the Rule 6 party in this planning inquiry that was recovered by the Secretary of State concerning the development of a so called ‘Mega Prison’ in Chorley. The case attracted significant press attention (led by Josef Cannon KC).
• Re: D – Advising a charitable educational trust on the proposed redevelopment of land in Ealing, including the conversion of a community centre into a Class F1 learning facility (led by William Webster).
• Re Church Street Regeneration Scheme – Advising on the proposed compulsory purchase of a property within the boundaries of the proposed Church Street Regeneration Scheme and drafted an objection to the proposed development on heritage, policy, character and equality grounds.
• Re: FOBH – Advised an action group on the interpretation of a s106 agreement in respect of student accommodation.
• Re: I – Advised on a proposed challenge to a London Borough’s proposals to put in place a traffic management scheme that would adversely impact local disabled residents.
• Re: BT – Advised on a proposed application to the Upper Tribunal (Land Chamber) under the Electronic Communications Code against the operator of a telecommunications mast.

Matthew’s healthcare interest lies in pharmaceutical and life science regulation, with particular expertise in advising on the international and domestic regimes governing the regulation of cannabis based medicinal products and psychoactive medicines.

He was, until the life sciences sector publications were withdrawn by Thomson Reuters, the author of the Cannabis Based Medicinal Products article on Practical Law. He has authored various entries on life science licensing in Jowitt’s Dictionary of Law and also a briefing for the Cannabis Trades Association on the implications of Brexit on the importation and exportation of cannabinoid products.

Cases of Note:

• Re: GLD - Advising a Central Government department on the regulatory regime concerning the use of medicinal cannabis in the workplace.
• Re: ARM - Advising a Central Government department on the legality of a potential policy concerning the use of medicinal cannabis at work, as well as risks arising from its implementation.
• Re: A - Advising Middle Eastern and African joint venturers on the domestic regulatory framework applicable to the establishment of a UK distribution company for the worldwide distribution of cannabis seeds.
• Re: MJH - Advised an offshore investment fund on the legal implications arising from the investment of funds derived from the production of CBMPs into the London Stock Exchange.
• Re: K - Advising a domestic purchaser on the application of the EU Tobacco Products Directive in the UK market.
• Re: V - Advising on and drafting various documents to settle a dispute between the directors of, and consultants for, an international pharmaceutical company as to the apportionment of future liability between the company and the consultants upon their withdrawal from the business.

Matthew has an established practice in media and information work advising and representing clients across the entire cross section of work dealt with in the Media and Communications List of the High Court including misuse of private information, breach of confidence, harassment, defamation, malicious falsehood and breaches of Article 8. He has represented Central Government departments, non departmental public bodies, higher education institutions, schools, companies and individuals.

Alongside the more traditional aspects of his media and communications practise, Matthew also advises organisations on the regulatory obligations for obtaining and controlling information and personal data on persons of interest under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, Investigatory Powers Act 2016 and the Disclosure and Barring regime. He has experience of advising on matters before the Investigatory Powers Tribunals.

Cases of Note:

• Re WCL - Advising a public authority on threatened proceedings before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, including on merits, strategy and the unique disclosure obligations that arise in such proceedings. Matthew then settled the defence.
• Re O - Advising a regulator on a wide range of compliance issues including: (1) data sharing protocols between itself and various public sector organisations, including the police, (2)the legality of requiring a transexual individual to obtain a new DBS certificate following transition, (3) their data retention policy, (4) the obligation to make reasonable adjustments and its balance with data protection rights, (5) a guide to data protection rights and privacy for internal policy colleagues.
• Re B School - Advising a prestigious, independent school on the merits of a threatened claim in defamation.
• I v A Solicitor’s firm - Advising on the merits of a claim alleging various breaches of the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018 and drafting a strike out/summary judgment application in respect of the same in the Media and Communications List.
• B v A Government Department - Settling the defence in a Media and Communications List claim alleging breaches of Article 8 ECHR, breach of confidence and misuse of private information.
• VB - Advising a potential claimant on the merits of a claim under Article 17 UK GDPR involving consideration of journalistic purposes and the archiving exemption.
• Re LL - Advising on merits, evidence and strategy in respect of a proposed Media and Communications List claim for breaches of the UK GDPR and misuse of private information. Successfully secured settlement pre trial.

Matthew has extensive experience advising and acting for regulators and those that they regulate having spent a significant period seconded to the legal teams of an education and a legal regulator in his early years of practice. He has significant experience advising and appearing for regulators defending applications for judicial review, advising on data protection issues, vires, and complaints schemes.

Cases of Note: 

• Re L - Advising a legal regulator on the legality of, and public consultation requirements arising in respect of, the implementation of a new Parliamentary Bill.
• R(A) v An Ombudsman Service - Settling the Summary Grounds of Resistance in this judicial review challenge to an ombudsman’s preliminary decision to find a complaint ineligible. Successfully secured a refusal of permission ‘on the papers’ and then at an oral permission hearing.
• R(LL) v An Ombudsman Service - Settling the Summary Grounds of Resistance in this judicial review challenge to the legality of an ombudsman’s decision to refuse to investigate a complaint for being out of time.
• Re A regulator - Advising a regulator on whether they were obliged, pursuant to ‘Managing Public Money’ to seek to recover its costs following a successful defence of an application for judicial review
• Re O - Advising a regulator on the point at which they became functus following an investigation and on amendments to its investigation process to overcome the same.
• An Ombudsman service - Advising an ombudsman scheme on the legality and rationality of its proposed prioritisation process for investigating complaints.
• Re A Regulator - Advising a regulator on the correct interpretation of its enabling act and whether it could investigate a corporate body, as well as its directors.