Matthew joined the Restructuring and Insolvency department in July 2024.

Matthew has experience in a range of corporate and personal insolvency matters both contentious and non-contentious including, but not limited to:

• advising officeholders and directors in connection with misfeasance and debt recovery claims;
• advising on validity of security and enforcement options including the appointment of receivers;
• advising on business and asset sales from insolvent companies including pre-packaged administration sales;
• challenging and defending the appointment of officeholders and receivers;
• advising Lenders on enforcement and risk management options;
• advising officeholders in respect of trading administrations; and
• preparing and pursuing court proceedings, including Part 8 proceedings; Insolvency Act applications; and hybrid claims.

Matthew read law at Nottingham Law School graduating first class with honours before completing the Legal Practice Couse with distinction and passing the Solicitors Qualifying Examination in 2023. Prior to qualification Matthew worked as a paralegal in a restructuring team in London and Suffolk for many years.

Matthew was noted as a 'Key Lawyer' in the Legal 500's 2026 submissions.

• Rectification of Deed ex parte - Matthew assisted officeholders with a trading administration of various care homes which had title issues in respect of one of the care home properties. Matthew assisted in the preparation of Part 8 proceedings to secure rectification of a deed of transfer on an ex parte basis. This positive result was achieved despite the age of the defect in title and notwithstanding the transfer of the property to two intervening proprietors (both within and outside of the jurisdiction).
• BLCP Eden 1 Limited (in Administration) & Anor -v- Rooksmead Securities Limited & Ors [2026] EWHC 1268 - Matthew assisted in the preparation and pursuit of Part 8 proceedings challenging the transfer of property by receivers on the basis that the receivers had not been properly appointed. The case is a useful precedent on the limitations of corrective construction in insolvency cases and serves as a reminder to insolvency practitioners that the court will not simply rescue defective documents because an error appears obvious.