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 broad Chancery practice with a particular emphasis on trusts, estates, related professional negligence and the property and affairs jurisdiction of the Court of Protection.
Mathew also accepts ecclesiastical law instructions.
About Mathew Roper
Mathew’s practice focuses on contentious trust and estate litigation and related professional negligence. Mathew also has a busy non-contentious advisory practice.
Recent/notable cases in this area include:
- Bullard v Bullard  EWHC 3 (Ch). Mathew acted for a settlor in her claim to rectify a settlement created as part of a “double trust scheme” so as to exclude section 31 of the Trustee Act 1925.
- RNLI v Headley  EWHC 1948 (Ch);  WTLR 1433. Mathew acted for the Claimants in their claim for an account and disclosure.
- Fielden v Christie-Miller (see  EWHC 2940 (Ch)). Mathew (led by Penelope Reed QC) acted for the Claimant and Part 20 Defendant in trust litigation concerning an Oxfordshire estate in excess of £40M.
- Re GHW (2015). Mathew (led by David Rees QC) acted for a deputy and litigation friend in litigation concerning a contractual claim for care fees in excess of £10M. The defence concerned, amongst other things, undue influence and unconscionable bargain.
- Cotton v Earl of Cardigan (see  EWCA Civ 1312). Mathew acted at first instance 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’s Court of Protection practice focuses on contested deputyship, statutory will and estate planning applications. He also receives regular instructions to act in proceedings concerning the validity, registration and revocation of Enduring and Lasting Powers of Attorney.
Recent cases include:
- Re AR  EWCOP 8. Mathew acted for the Public Guardian in proceedings concerning the validity of orders made for the remuneration of a professional deputy.
- Re JKS  EWCOP 8. Mathew (led by Christopher Tidmarsh QC) acted for the Official Solicitor 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  CH157/11 (22 June 2012); Re St Mary’s, Witney (2013)) and as a junior (Re St Cyriac, Lacock  Bristol Const. Ct (4 December 2012)). He is available to accept instructions at all stages of the Church of England’s faculty jurisdiction.
Mathew also regularly advises clients on issues of burial, exhumation and Chancel repair liability.
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 his Inn’s Certificate of Honour.
Mathew is a member of the Chancery Bar Association and the Ecclesiastical Law Society.
Mathew writes and speaks widely within his area of expertise. He is the succession correspondent for Private Client Business and a regular contributor to Trusts & Estates and the Solicitors for the Elderly Newsletter.
Articles and lectures include:
- “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)
- “Public Trustee v Cooper Applications” (September 2016)
- “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)