Back to rankings

Matrix Chambers

More information

England - London Bar

1

Elections

Matrix Chambers‘ election law team demonstrates a strong track record representing a client base ranging from the Electoral Commission, returning officers and major political parties, to NGOs and campaigning organisations. Tom Gillie successfully acted for the first respondent in Moore v The Royal Mail and others to strike out a petition against them, which was the only parliamentary election petition to arise in 2025.

Legal 500 Editorial commentary

Lawyers

Leading Silks

KCs at the very top of their field, with a long-established record of market-defining cases, and widespread endorsement from clients and peers. All silks appointed in the last two rounds are listed further below.

Helen Mountfield KC

Sarah Hannett KC

Sarah is an excellent and knowledgeable advocate whom I rate very highly. Her style is clear and effective. She is also a pleasure to work with.

Gavin Millar KC

Leading Juniors

Leading juniors are those with significant experience of key cases, strong market recognition from both peers and clients, and are seen as future candidates for silk.

Tom Gillie

Tom's greatest strength is that he understands politics as well as he understands the law. He knows how parties actually work, including the committees, the factions, and the pressures people are operating under. His advice is grounded in that reality, and he is enormously pragmatic with it. He tells you what you can actually do, not just what the theoretical position is. He is also unusually good at making a difficult and obscure area of law comprehensible to people who are not lawyers. A lot of what we do has to be explained to lay decision-makers who need to understand the position well enough to take a decision and then defend it. Tom explains it clearly and without a trace of condescension, and people come away confident rather than baffled. He wrote the practitioner text in this field, Organised Politics, Law and Practice, and the same quality runs through it. In court, he is excellent. His submissions are clear and well-structured, and he is never fazed by questioning from the bench. He engages with the point the judge is actually making and answers it. He plainly has the confidence of the court. What stands out most is his cross-examination of lay witnesses, which is forensic but compassionate. He gets exactly what he needs, and he does it with real care for people finding the whole experience difficult. He is also responsive and fast, which counts for a great deal in an area where the timetables are unforgiving. We have the utmost confidence in his skills and use him on all our most thorny issues.