- General Information
Mathew Gullick is an experienced High Court and appellate advocate. He has appeared in the High Court, Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in trials and appeals across the spectrum of his practice, which is focused on public law, employment and commercial matters. He is also frequently instructed both on costs issues and on procedural points across the entire spectrum of civil litigation, including in group litigation. He undertakes asset forfeiture work (including on human rights issues) in both the criminal and civil jurisdictions, reflecting the crossover between his commercial and public law practice.
Mathew is a member of the Attorney-General's A Panel of Junior Counsel to the Crown in civil matters. Previously he served on the B Panel (2012-2016) and the C Panel (2008-2012). He is currently instructed by the UK Government in the Kenyan Emergency Group Litigation, in which more than 40,000 individuals have brought claims arising from their experiences during the ‘Mau Mau’ Emergency in the 1950s.
For more information on Mathew’s practice, please see his specialist profiles. Cases of note in which he has appeared include the following:
- R (on the applications of Nealon and Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice  EWCA Civ 355 (Article 6.2 ECHR not applicable to decisions to refuse award under statutory compensation scheme for miscarriages of justice; scheme would not breach Article 6.2 even if applicable)
- R (on the application of Idira) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 1187,  1 WLR 1694 (detention in prison, under immigration powers, of time-served foreign national offender pending his deportation did not breach Article 5 ECHR)
- Mandalia v Secretary of State for the Home Department  UKSC 59,  1 WLR 4546 (application of the evidential flexibility policy to Points-Based System applications; meaning of document missing from a sequence or series)
- R (on the applications of Mehmood and Ali) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 744,  1 WLR 461 (lead appeal in the litigation arising from the ETS language testing scandal; removal decision under s.10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 invalidated leave extended by s.3C of the Immigration Act 1971; no ‘special or exceptional factors’ existed justifying recourse to judicial review where out-of-country statutory appeal available)
- R v Ahmad & Another; R v Fields & Others  UKSC 36,  AC 299 (wrong in principle to apportion benefit jointly obtained between offenders when making confiscation orders, so each is liable to pay the whole amount; but total amount that may in practice be recovered by the State from them collectively limited to the amount of the joint benefit to ensure compliance with A1P1 to the ECHR)
- Sanders v Newham Sixth Form College  EWCA Civ 734 (approach of Employment Tribunal to analysing claim for disability discrimination by failure to make reasonable adjustments; endorsement of the Employment Appeal Tribunal’s guidance in RBS v Ashton and Environment Agency v Rowan)
- SE (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 256,  Imm AR 855 (prospects of rehabilitation in receiving country versus prospects in the UK not relevant to Article 8 ECHR balancing exercise when considering deportation of foreign criminal)
- R (on the applications of Muazu and Adda) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 3764 (Admin) (detention of immigration detainees refusing food, fluid and medical treatment was not contrary to Home Office policy and was lawful under Articles 2 and 3 ECHR)
- Secretary of State for the Home Department v Raju & Others  EWCA Civ 754,  1 WLR 1768 (whether applicants under the Tier 1 (Post-Study Work) route in the Immigration Rules qualified for leave to remain when they had not obtained their degrees at the date of application)
- E-Nik Ltd v Department for Communities and Local Government  EWHC 3027 (Comm),  2 All ER (Comm) 868 (construction of contract for the provision of IT services to Government department; whether obligation to purchase minimum amount of consultancy services; whether clauses relied on by claimant amounted to a penalty; whether minimum price was inclusive or exclusive of VAT; applicability of Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998)
- Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Cattrell  EWCA Civ 572 (requirements for the grant of permission to appeal from the Upper Tribunal to the Court of Appeal; decision cited in Civil Procedure [“the White Book”])
- Harris v Registrar of Approved Driving Instructors  EWCA Civ 808,  RTR 1 (scope of "fit and proper person" test for entry onto Government register of driving instructors; requirements of natural justice and of the ECHR applicable to "informal" appeal hearing before tribunal)
- R (on the application of Compton) v Wiltshire PCT  EWCA Civ 749,  1 WLR 1436 (criteria and procedure for making and setting aside protective costs orders; scope of “general public importance” test; definition of “compelling reason” for setting aside order made on the papers; formal requirements for agreement under CPR 23.8 to paper determination of application; decision cited in Civil Procedure [“the White Book”])
Mathew is also frequently instructed on costs issues across the spectrum of civil litigation. He has been instructed on numerous high value costs matters, including multi-million pound costs claims in group litigation. He has twice been instructed, as specialist costs Counsel, to make written submissions on costs to the UK Supreme Court. Mathew's work in this field has included both Queen's Bench and Chancery matters as well as Tribunal proceedings. In addition to detailed assessment proceedings, his costs practice has, for example, seen him successfully making and opposing applications for protective costs orders in the Administrative Court, and successfully opposing applications for non-party costs orders against legal expenses insurers.
Mathew also has extensive experience of advising and appearing on jurisdictional and procedural issues, including in relation to many of the more obscure provisions of the CPR, the RSC and the CCR. Several of his cases are cited as precedents in the leading textbooks on civil procedure. He has appeared in several contempt of court matters in the High Court. Mathew’s practice also extends to the law relating to the enforcement of judgments, including the powers and liabilities of enforcement officials. He has conducted the oral examination of judgment debtors in the High Court, and has successfully obtained committal orders in linked contempt of court proceedings.
Mathew is an active member of the Bar Pro Bono Unit, and was nominated for the Bar Pro Bono Award in 2007, 2009 and 2011, on the second occasion receiving a special commendation from the judging panel. He was a member of the Gray’s Inn team that won the 2003 Inter-Inn Mooting Competition, and went on the Inn’s biennial mooting tour of the USA in September 2003.
Contributor to Millington and Sutherland Williams on the Proceeds of Crime (Fourth Edition, 2013) (Oxford University Press)
"Corner House Revisited: The Law Governing Protective Costs Orders", Judicial Review March 2009,  JR 43
"Cutting Back on Custody", New Law Journal 11th February 2005, (2005) 155 NLJ 220
“The Criminal Justice Act 2003: Sentencing and Early Release of Fixed-Term Prisoners”, Criminal Law Review August 2004,  Crim LR 653
“Political Donations and Political Expenditure by Companies: The Authorisation and Disclosure Requirements of the Companies Act 1985”, Business Law Review March 2003, (2003) 24 Bus LR 48
“Sentencing and the Home Detention Curfew Scheme”, Criminal Law Review May 2002,  Crim LR 391
Mathew also assisted with the Third Edition (2004), Fourth Edition (2006) and Fifth Edition (2009) of Understanding the Law by His Honour Geoffrey Rivlin QC (Oxford University Press).