Matthew’s public law practice includes judicial review, homelessness appeals and challenges involving the exercise of public functions. He has particular experience of the relationship between statutory housing duties, vulnerability and the public sector equality duty.

In McMahon v Watford Borough Council; Kiefer v Hertsmere Borough Council [2020] EWCA Civ 497, he represented both homelessness applicants alongside Toby Vanhegan. The Court of Appeal considered vulnerability and the application of the public sector equality duty when determining priority need for accommodation.

He was also co-counsel for the successful appellant, Mr Smith, in Panayiotou v London Borough of Waltham Forest; Smith v London Borough of Haringey [2017] EWCA Civ 1624. The joined appeals addressed the meaning of “significantly” vulnerable in homelessness law and the discharge of the public sector equality duty where a homelessness review had been contracted out.

His public law and equality experience also informs his writing on AI, public decision-making and human rights.

Housing disrepair, housing conditions and dilapidations are a particular focus of Matthew’s practice. His work includes claims concerning unfitness for human habitation, repairing obligations, damp and mould, environmental protection and housing-related personal injury, alongside the associated questions of discrimination and remedies.

In Harvey v Heaver [2026] EWHC 1671 (KB), Matthew represented the successful claimants at the High Court trial concerning the present fitness of their home and the works required to remedy its condition. The judgment appears to be the first authoritative High Court interpretation of the current fitness-for-human-habitation regime under sections 9A and 10 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It explains that unfitness is not confined to risks to health or safety but may also arise from sufficiently serious interference with comfort and convenience. The court ordered specific performance requiring remedial works. Matthew was instructed by Mark Harvey of Mark Harvey Freelance Law.

In Khan v Mehmood [2022] EWCA Civ 791, Matthew acted for the tenant respondent alongside Toby Vanhegan, instructed by Duncan Lewis Solicitors. The Court of Appeal held that the 10% uplift established in Simmons v Castle applies to general damages for breach of a repairing covenant. The decision is an important authority on the assessment of damages in housing disrepair claims.

Matthew’s wider housing and property practice includes possession proceedings, homelessness, unlawful eviction, antisocial behaviour injunctions and disputes about security of tenure. His other reported cases include Ibrahim v Haringey LBC [2021] EWHC 731 (QB), in which he acted with Justin Bates on a successful appeal concerning procedural fairness and accommodation provided during “Everyone In”; Mohamed v Barnet LBC [2019] EWHC 1012 (QB), concerning an exclusion from secure-tenancy status; and Akita v Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland [2019] EWHC 1712 (QB), concerning premature dismissal of proceedings for non-attendance at trial.

He is also contributing to a leading housing law textbook and preparing articles for leading housing law publications. Further details will be announced shortly.

The Equality Act 2010 remains a fundamental part of Matthew’s practice. He advises and represents clients in matters involving discrimination arising from disability, reasonable adjustments and the public sector equality duty, particularly where equality issues arise in housing and the exercise of public functions.

His appellate work includes McMahon and Panayiotou above as well as Powell v Dacorum Borough Council [2019] EWCA Civ 23, in which he acted jointly for the appellant. The case concerned the public sector equality duty in the enforcement of a possession order and an application to suspend a warrant. He also acted at the permission stage in London & Quadrant Housing Trust v Patrick [2019] EWHC 1263 (QB), concerning the treatment of public sector equality duty arguments in possession proceedings.

He has also appeared in successful discrimination claims in the County Court. Including the important cases of London Borough of Havering v Green where a possession claim was dismissed against an occupant who had no further statutory succession rights for breach of PSED and Hickmet and Cheerz Express Limited v Dragos. In that case, Matthew represented the successful tenant at trial. The possession claim was dismissed and the tenant was awarded £49,534 following findings including direct race discrimination, racial harassment and harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Matthew regularly acts in claims involving harassment, threatened or unlawful eviction and urgent applications for injunctive relief. 

Matthew is the founder and principal author of Natural & Artificial Intelligence in Law and The AI Law Reports. His selected publications include:

AI Hallucinations and the Discipline of Legal Authority, Barrister Magazine, 29 April 2026.

Fake cases... Will hallucinations stop?, Counsel, 16 February 2026.

Chatbot-related harm, Counsel, 16 January 2026.

The rise and rise of fake cases, Counsel, 8 September 2025.

Mortgage Lenders Beware: AI Transparency and the Rise of AI Discrimination Claims, with Michael Grant, 42BR, 2 May 2025.

Further publications, independent citations and media coverage are collected in his media and publications archive.

Matthew is ranked in Chambers & Partners UK Bar 2026:

"Matthew Lee is a highly skilled and knowledgeable barrister with a strong reputation in social housing and public law."

"Matthew is the leading barrister in the field of disrepair and housing conditions. He thinks outside the box and really knows his stuff."

"I really enjoy working with Matt; he has a can-do approach to the law and is not afraid to think outside the box."

The Legal 500 2026 rankings list Matthew as a Leading Junior:

"Matthew is very knowledgeable in the area of housing, and he is committed and compassionate in his work."

Matthew was ranked in Chambers & Partners UK Bar 2025:

“He is innovative, personable and understands the struggles solicitors have with the clients.”

“Matthew is a fearless advocate and is particularly good on cases where there are Equality Act 2010 issues.”

"I know I can always trust Matthew to deal with complex matters in an impeccable way and pick out issues and bring about innovative arguments."

“Strong junior with significant market recognition for his recent appearances in significant reported cases. He acts in possession cases and anti-social behaviour claims, among other disputes, including those relating to the Equality Act 2010.”

"He is an excellent advocate and his style is direct and persuasive."

"Matthew is extremely hard-working and very dedicated to housing."

“He is a tenacious advocate and fights hard for his clients.”

“Very personable, knowledgeable and not afraid to think outside the box. He is a fearless advocate.”

“He is already above and beyond what you would expect for his year of call.”

The Legal 500 2025 rankings list Matthew as a Leading Junior:

“His work is excellent, he is enthusiastic and not afraid to think outside the box. His wide-ranging experience includes cases involving homelessness, possession, antisocial behaviour and disrepair.”