Overview
Matthew is a specialist fitness to practise, professional disciplinary & regulatory barrister, having practised in this field for around 10 years. He acts for both regulators and regulated professionals.
Matthew has particular expertise in the healthcare, education and accountancy sectors. Matthew has extensive experience of cases involving allegations of dishonesty, fraud, sexual misconduct and complex clinical and/or technical failings.
Matthew has previously practised in crime, personal injury and regulatory law and so is able to draw on this experience in his current practice.
Matthew is ranked in the Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners as a leading barrister in Professional Discipline and Regulatory law.
Professional Panel Appointments
-
Matthew is a legal advisor to the General Dental Council.
Direct Public Access
- Matthew is qualified to receive instructions directly from members of the public.
Professional Discipline & Regulatory
Healthcare
Matthew has extensive experience acting in proceedings at most of the healthcare regulators including the General Medical Council, the General Dental Council, the General Pharmaceutical Council, the General Optical Council, the General Osteopathic Council, the General Chiropractic Council, the Health and Care Professions Council, the Nursing and Midwifery Council and Social Work England. Matthew has also acted in regulatory proceedings at the High Court. Matthew has also acted in performers’ list proceedings at local level and on appeal to the First-Tier and Upper-Tier Tribunals.
Accountancy
Matthew has considerable experience of proceedings at the accountancy regulators including in proceedings before the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, the Association of Accounting Technicians, the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants, the Institute of Financial Accountants, the Association of International Accountants and the Tax Disciplinary Board.
Matthew’s practice predominantly involves acting on behalf of accountants but he also acts on behalf of some of the accountancy regulators.
Matthew’s practice includes advisory work, assisting accountants in drafting response to their regulators at various stages of the process and representation at disciplinary hearings.
Matthew accepts direct public access instructions in this area of work.
Education
Matthew has acted as a legal advisor to the professional conduct panel of the Teaching Regulation Agency. His extensive experience means he is well placed to act in Education proceedings involving students, universities and schools.
Professional Memberships
- Association of Regulatory & Disciplinary Lawyers (ARDL)
Cases of Note
ACCOUNTANCY
ACCA v L [2023]
Currently instructed to act for an ACCA member accused of dishonestly misrepresenting their experience on their C.V and of falsifying a reference.
ICAEW v W [2023]
Currently instructed to act on behalf of an auditor in relation to proceedings arising from the audit of a Championship football club.
TBD v B [2023]
Currently instructed in relation to appear before the Tax Disciplinary Tribunal to act for a chartered tax advisor alleged to have acted dishonestly.
IFA v M [2023]
Acted for the IFA in respect of proceedings brought in relation to non compliance with an investigation brought by the IFA.
IFA v N [2023]
Acted for the IFA in relation to proceedings alleging various failures in AML compliance.
IFA v K [2023]
Acted for the IFA in relation to proceedings relating to the making of a false declaration within an application for renewal of membership with the IFA.
ICAEW v S [2022]
Represented an accountant alleged to have acted without integrity in relation to the non-disclosure of third party fees received as a result of an introduction to a client. It was successfully argued that the conduct did not lack integrity. Further, although other allegations were admitted, it was successfully argued that no costs order should be made.
CIMA v E [2022]
Acted for an accountant alleged to have posted misleading and dishonest information as to her qualifications on social media. Following detailed representations, the matter was disposed of with a reprimand by consent and with no referral to the Disciplinary Committee.
ICAEW v B [2022]
Successful appeal of a decision by the Disciplinary Committee to exclude an accountant from membership in respect of an admitted false and dishonest representation within a letter to the HMRC.
AIA v R [2022]
Acted for member excluded from membership in respect of various acts on non-compliance with an anti- money laundering audit. Successful appeal on the basis of a failure to follow the correct disciplinary procedures.
AAT v T [2021]
Acted on behalf of the AAT in proceedings alleging various technical breaches in relation to compliance issues as well as the provision of misleading and dishonest information on an application to renew a licence.
HEALTHCARE
NHSE v A [2022-2016]
Acted for NHS England in proceedings before the PLDP, on appeal to the First Tier Tribunal and the Upper Tier Tribunal in relation to allegations including causing or allowing a health care assistant to carry out activities reserved for qualified doctors. Advising on an application to be included on the performers’ list following a decision by the MPTS in linked proceedings.
NHSE v A [2022]
Acted for NHS England at the First Tier Tribunal in an application to review an order for national disqualification made pursuant to the National Health Service (Performers Lists) Regulations 2004.
GOsC v G [2021]
Acted for the GOsC in respect of an osteopath who was found to have carried out treatment without informed consent and to have transgressed professional boundaries.
GDC v A [2022]
Acted for the GDC in relation to allegations of submitting fraudulent claims to the NHS.
GDC v G [2021]
Acted for the GDC in relation to an allegation of making fraudulent claims to the NHS. The Registrant was erased from the register.
GDC v T [2019]
Acted for the GDC in four week case involving complex allegations of failures in orthodontic and prosthetic treatment.
GDC v O [2018]
Acted for the GDC a case related to a conviction in Serbia. The case involved the instruction of an expert in Serbian law as to the status of the conviction and analysis of whether it was a conviction within the meaning of the Dentists act 1984.
GDC v B [2017]
Acted for the GDC in a case alleging historic sexual abuse. It was successfully argued that it was not an abuse of process for proceedings to be brought following a decision not to pursue criminal charges.
GDC v I [2016]
Acted for the GDC in a case involving a dentist extracting all of a patient’s teeth without informed consent and/or clinical indication in respect of a patient with serious mental health issues.
GDC v T [2015]
Acted for the GDC in relation to a dentist who was alleged to have purchased counterfeit equipment at heavily discounted prices for use in his practices from Chinese websites.
GOC v H [2023]
Acted for the GOC in a case in which the registrant was proven to have stolen money from his employer.
GOC v C [2020]
Acted for the GOC in a matter in which a registrant had made dishonest claims to the NHS and carried out over 600 sight tests on school children to an inadequate standard. The registrant was erased from the register.
GOC v K [2020]
Acted for the GOC in a case in which the registrant was proven to have submitted a false letter in support of his case in civil proceedings and to have sought to contact and influence the key witness in the run up to the case being heard. The registrant was erased from the register.
GOC v H [2019]
Acted for the GOC in a case in which the allegation concerned failing to carry out an adequate eye examination in that pathology was missed.
GPhC v S [2023]
Acted for the GPhC in respect of a case in which the Registrant was alleged to have supplied large quantities of fentanyl against forged prescriptions.
GPhC v B [2023]
Acted for the GPhC in a case in which the Registrant was proven to have dishonestly transferred a large amount of patient data to his own personal account and to have lied to cover up his actions.
GPhC v various [2023]
Currently acting in a matter in which a number of registrants are alleged to have been involved in the purchase and wholesale of large volumes of controlled drugs without the appropriate license being in place.
GPhC v I [2022]
Acted for the GPhC in a case in which the pharmacist was alleged to have been prescribing in high volumes as part of an online pharmacy outside his scope of competence. The pharmacist was suspended from the register.
GPhC v C [2022]
Acted for the GPhC in a case in which it is alleged that a pharmacy owner dispensing medications abroad as part of an online service failed to implement a safe system of governance .
GPhC v B [2022]
Acted for the GPhC in a case in which the Pharmacist was proved to have allowed medications to be ordered via by a third party and thereby leave the legitimate supply chain.
GPhC v B [2022]
Acting for the GPhC in a case alleging that the pharmacist had a health condition impairing his fitness to practice involving contested expert evidence.
GPhC v A [2020]
Acted for the GPhC in a case which came to light as a result of a journalist purchasing hormone medications online. Allegations of providing online pharmacy services without adequate governance were proven and the registrant was removed from the register.
GPhC v F [2016]
Acted for the GPhC in proceedings in which the Registrant was proved to have diverted large quantities of controlled drugs out of the legitimate supply chain.
HCPC v S 2023 [2023]
Currently instructed in proceedings in which the Registrant is alleged to committed a serious and historic sexual offence. An application to stay proceedings as an abuse of process has been successfully resisted.
HCPC v C [2023]
Acted for the HCPC in relation to proceedings in which both clinical misconduct and lack of competence were established in respect of a paramedic.
HCPC v W [2022]
Acted for the HCPC in a case in which it was proven that a psychologist entered into a sexual relationship with a former patient. The registrant was suspended from the register.
