5 Stone Buildings is a go-to traditional chancery set with a depth and breadth of talent and experience among both its silks and its junior counsel.
Mathew has a busy contentious and non-contentious practice with a particular emphasis on trusts, estates, related professional negligence and the property and affairs jurisdiction of the Court of Protection.
About Mathew Roper
Mathew regularly appears in court and advises in respect of applications for directions, claims concerning breaches of trust and devastavit, actions for the removal of trustees and substation of executors, applications to vary trusts or extend trustees’ powers, probate claims and applications under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. He is also experienced in the conduct of claims for rectification and rescission and claims concerning the beneficial ownership of property, the doctrine of proprietary estoppel and transactions procured by undue influence.
Mathew’s litigation practice is complemented by a busy non-contentious practice. He regularly advises trustees, executors and beneficiaries alike on the administration of trusts and estates and issues of related capital taxation.
Notable cases in this area include:
• Bullard v Bullard  EWHC 3 (Ch). Mathew acted for the successful claimant in her claim to rectify a settlement created as part of a “double trust scheme”.
• RNLI v Headley  EWHC 1948 (Ch);  WTLR 1433. Mathew acted for the successful claimants in their claim for an account and disclosure of trust documentation.
• Fielden v Christie-Miller (2015). Mathew acted with Penelope Reed QC for the claimant and Part 20 defendant in litigation concerning an Oxfordshire estate worth in excess of £40M. The claim primarily concerned a claim to rectify a deed of appointment and the doctrine of proprietary estoppel.
• Barton v Willey (2015). Mathew acted with David Rees QC for a deputy and litigation friend in a claim concerning an alleged contract to pay care fees in excess of £10M. The defence concerned, amongst other things, undue influence and unconscionable bargain.
• Cotton v Earl of Cardigan (2013). Mathew acted at first instance as sole counsel for the trustee of a sub-trust and the principal beneficiary thereof in an application to bless a proposed sale of trust property for over £11M.
Mathew has considerable Court of Protection experience. He is regularly instructed by the Official Solicitor, the Public Guardian and private parties in contested deputyship applications, applications for statutory wills and estate planning gifts and applications concerning the validity, registration and revocation of enduring and lasting powers of attorney.
Notable cases in this area include:
• Re KP  EWCOP. Mathew acted for the Public Guardian in proceedings concerning the entitlement of a professional deputy to remuneration and expenses.
• Re AR  EWCOP 8;  COPLR 274 Mathew acted for the Public Guardian in proceedings concerning the validity of various bulk orders made for the remuneration of a professional deputy.
• A v D  EWCOP 8;  WTLR 819. Mathew acted with Christopher Tidmarsh QC in a statutory will application concerning, amongst other things, the effect of a compromise of undue influence proceedings brought by P against one of her sons.
Mathew is experienced in the field of ecclesiastical law, having appeared in the consistory courts as sole counsel Re St Peter, Brighton (22 June 2012) (Chichester) and as a junior Re St Cyriac, Lacock (4 December 2012) (Bristol). He is available to accept instructions at all stages of the Church of England’s faculty jurisdiction.
Mathew read Ancient and Medieval History at the University of Birmingham, graduating top of his year with First Class Honours. After completing the Graduate Diploma in Law, Mathew was graded “Outstanding” on the Bar Professional Training Course at City Law School. Mathew received the Terence Fitzgerald Scholarship and an accommodation award from Middle Temple and was called to the Bar in July 2011 with the Certificate of Honour.
Mathew is a member of the Chancery Bar Association, the Court of Protection Bar Association and the Ecclesiastical Law Society.
Mathew writes and speaks widely within his area of expertise.
• Payne v Payne: a legislative change of form not substance? (Private Client Business (2018) (5)).
• “Remuneration of Deputies” (Trusts & Estates 2018, May, 6-8)
• “Rectification: mistakes and fiscal objectives” (Trusts & Trustees 2017 23(7))
• “Accounting Rights: classified information” (Trusts and Estates Law & Tax Journal, No. 185 (April 2017))
• “Accounting, disclosure, and trustees’ costs” (Trusts & Trustees 2017 23(2))
• “Recent Contested Deputyship Decisions” (Private Client Business 2016(4))
• “Chancel Repair Liability: is the ordeal over yet?” (August 2012)
• “Lilleyman v Lilleyman: approaching ‘non-matrimonial property’ Under the Inheritance Act” (Elder Law Journal 2012(4))
• “Re AR”: Remunerating Professional Deputies
• “Illusory trusts”
• “Joint property: land and bank accounts”
• “A v D: Statutory Wills in the Spotlight?”
•“Knowledge & Approval: suspicious minds”
• “The Residential Nil-Rate Band”
• “Public Trustee v Cooper Applications”