Solicitor-advocate specialising in civil claims involving allegations of criminal conduct such as civil fraud (including freezing injunctions and other emergency remedies) and defamation. Also has extensive experience of inheritance/probate disputes and civil aspects of restraint and confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
“Matthew Jenkins of Hughmans is a highly experienced practitioner who is noted for his representation of claimants and defendants in cases concerning data protection and the removal of inaccurate information. Commentators consider him a “sensible and reliable” practitioner with “an excellent mind.”” Chambers & Partners Guide 2019
“Matthew Jenkins of Hughmans acts for claimants and defendants in claims related to defamation, privacy, breach of confidence, freedom of information and harassment. Market sources say: “He is incredibly bright; he’s a real force and is very good at laying out all the facts.” Chambers & Partners Guide 2018
“Matthew Jenkins of Hughmans offers niche expertise in defamation and privacy law matters which include a criminal or fraud element. Commentators say he is “just excellent – very bright, quick, and has really good judgement.” Chambers & Partners Guide 2017
“The “excellent” Matthew Jenkins of Hughmans is frequently sought for libel cases involving allegations of criminal activity. Commentators note: “He has a natural ability for libel and privacy cases: he’s very active and extremely hard-working.” Chambers & Partners Guide 2016
“Matthew Jenkins of Hughmans thoroughly impresses market sources, including one barrister who refers to him as “a standout solicitor – one of those people who is able to turn his hand to anything and do it well. He’s not confined to the area of law he’s practising in and always asks incisive questions.” His claimant-focused work usually stems from his wider expertise in crime, covering issues of defamation and breach of confidence.” Chambers & Partners UK Guide 2015
Matthew Jenkins is recommended as a top ranked lawyer in the field of Defamation and Reputation Management by leading industry guide Chambers & Partners.
Acting for Defendant in successful application at first instance to discharge an injunction for breach of the duty to provide full and frank disclosure and then on appeal in relation to issues concerning (i) fortification of cross-undertakings in damages and (ii) whether a litigant is entitled to appeal against an undertaking he has given: Schettini v Silvestri  EWCA Civ 349.
Acting for the deputy headteacher of local education authority school who had received payment substantially in excess of the amounts stated within the relevant statutory documents. Damages were sought of £2.8million on the basis of a dishonest, tortious conspiracy between the Defendants and/or by reason of breaches of fiduciary duty, thereby also founding a claim for knowing receipt. At the end of a 7 week trial, the claims for dishonesty, conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty (as against our client) were dismissed, leaving a liability for knowing receipt. Having heard further argument on the scope of the remedy in knowing receipt the Court entered judgment against our client for less than £40,000. A costs order was made in favour of our client against the Claimant: Brent LBC v Evans  EWHC 2214 (Ch)  EWHC 3129 (Ch).
Acting for a Defendant accused of conspiracy to breach freezing injunctions in order to evade judgment debts totalling over $4.6bn. Issues including privilege against self incrimination in relation to asset disclosure JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Anr  EWHC 289 (Comm); application to set aside freezing injunction on the grounds of non-disclosure  EWHC 259 (Comm); cross examination on asset disclosure under the Hague convention, including re-opening appeal to the Court of Appeal on the grounds that the Court was misled  EWCA Civ 819; Supreme Court decision concerning the elements of a claim for unlawful means conspiracy and jurisdictional challenges based on the Lugano Convention:  UKSC 19.
Prosecuting multi million pound breach of contract claim against a member of the Saudi royal family, including successfully resisting appeal on the question of State Immunity: Harb v Prince Aziz  EWCA Civ 481 and succeeding at trial in establishing liability Harb v Prince Aziz  EWHC 3155 (Ch); contesting appeal on the questions of lack of judicial reasoning and alleged judicial bias  EWCA Civ 556; successfully defeating application for an unless order in relation to non payment of interim costs  EWHC 258 (Ch) and subsequent appeal  EWCA Civ 2215.
Substantial, hard fought shareholders/directors dispute; obtaining urgent injunctive relief and successfully prosecuting a committal application for reliance on forged documents and a forged witness statement: Neil & anr v Henderson  EWHC 90 (Ch).
Acting for Sergei Pugachev in litigation arising out of the insolvency of JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank, a subsidiary liability Russian judgment and an English default judgment for over £1bn. JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank v Pugachev  EWCH (Ch) 1751; 1767; 1847; 1853.
Acting for Defendant in claim for misfeasance involving consideration of tracing remedies and mixing of funds: Richard Hunt Investments Limited v Hunt  EWHC 988 (Ch).
Leading case on costs orders in the Court of Protection: In re: A (A patient)  4 WLR 141.
Long running dispute concerning complex property fraud on the estate of a deceased Kuwaiti Sheikh involving proceedings in England, Gibraltar, Kuwait and Canada; defeating libel claim; prosecuting freezing injunction and enforcement proceedings; successfully resisting challenge in the Court of Appeal to a suspended committal order obtained against a judgment debtor; obtaining judgment and successfully pursuing tracing claims for money misappropriated in breach of fiduciary duty (Al Baho and Ors v Meerza  EWHC 2984 (QB) (Al Baho and Ors v Meerza  EWHC 2523 (QB)) (Al Baho and Ors v Meerza  EWCA Civ 669) (Meerza & Ors v Al Baho  EWHC 3154 (Ch)).
Fraudulent misrepresentation in pre contract enquiries on sale of nightclub premises; questions of inducement and reliance (Edwards v Ashik  EWHC 2454 (Ch)).
€100m fraud claim based on Maltese law (Group Seven Ltd and Anor v Allied Investment Corporation Ltd and Ors  EWHC 2046 (Ch)). Successful application for disclosure of documents in reliance on the fraud exception to Legal Professional Privilege (Group Seven Limited v Allied Investment Corporation Limited and Ors  EWHC 1423 (Ch)). Successful resistance of committal application relating to alleged breach of a freezing injunction (Group Seven Limited v Allied Investment Corporation Limited and Ors  EWHC 1509 (Ch)).
Libel actions concerning allegations of serious criminal conduct (Hunt v Evening Standard Ltd  EWHC 272 (QB) (18 February 2011) (Hunt v Times Newspapers Ltd  EWHC 110 (QB) (30 January 2012) (Hunt v Times Newspapers Ltd  EWHC 1220 (QB) (10 May 2012) (Hunt v Times Newspapers Ltd EWHC 1868 (QB)).
Libel claim against Police concerning allegation of unlawful killing (Bento v Chief Constable of Bedfordshire  EWHC 1525 (QB)).
Priority afforded by registration of Charging Order in enforcement of judgment debt (Hughmans v Central Stream Services Limited  EWCA Civ 1720).
Establishing in High Court action that wife of convicted drug trafficker had a beneficial interest in a valuable property, despite adverse findings in Crown Court confiscation proceedings (CPS v Piper  EWHC 3570 (Admin)).
Acting for executors of deceased Australian music executive Peter Ikin in claim for forgery and fraud. Issues over payment of legal costs from funds restrained by freezing and proprietary injunctions (Re: Ikin, deceased; sub nom Court v Despallieres (2009) (Roth J.) 153 (38) S.J.L.B. 30). Prosecuting committal proceedings for breaches of Court orders; complicated legal issues concerning the interrelationship between the laws of England and Australia and the effect of a civil partnership. Obtaining summary judgment on a point of law under s18B of the Wills Act 1837 (Re: Ikin, deceased; sub nom Court and Ors v Despallieres  2 All E.R. 451).
Dispute between executors of valuable estate (Goodman and another v Goodman and another  3 All ER 490).
First substantial claim brought by Assets Recovery Agency under Part 5 of POCA (civil recovery orders); leading authority on scope and application of Part 5 of POCA (ARA v Green and others  EWHC 3168 (Admin)).
Several other cases against the Assets Recovery Agency and the Serious Organised Crime Agency under POCA, including leading case on the Court’s jurisdiction to make freezing injunctions in support of claims under Part 6 of POCA (Assets Recovery Agency v McCormack  EWHC 908 (QB)).
Acting for antiquities dealer alleged to have operated in partnership and to have hidden assets from the executors of his deceased partner. Successful appeal to the Court of Appeal concerning breach of Human Rights Act on committal application for breaches of freezing injunctions (Robin James Symes v Jonathan Guy Anthony Phillips and Ors  EWCA Civ 553).
Acting for pawn broker establishing liability for fraud on the basis of non-disclosure (Advanced Industrial Technology Corporation Limited v Condrup  EWCA Civ 923).
Acting for clients in seeking the return of substantial sums of cash seized by the authorities, including leading case on application of the civil standard of proof in cash forfeiture proceedings (Butt v HM Customs and Excise  166 JP 173) and case concerning application of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court to strike out claims for delay (Fay v Chief Constable of Bedfordshire  EWCA Civ 1770).
Resisting increase in confiscation order after long delay by HM Customs and Excise in enforcement (In the Matter of Saggar  EWCA Civ 174).
Resisting enforcement of confiscation order where it would involve a breach of the anti-retrospectivity provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 (Togher v Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office and Anor  EWCA Civ 686).
“Matthew Jenkins of Hughmans is an ‘excellent litigator’ with a background in criminal and fraud matters. He was recently involved in a successful libel action against Bedfordshire Police relating to an allegation of unlawful killing.”Chambers & Partners UK Guide