Samuel Hodge

Samuel regularly represents office holders, creditors and debtors in all aspects of corporate and individual insolvency. See Samuel’s “significant cases” below for more detail.

His experience includes:

• Representing a litigation funder (which had taken an assignment of a liquidator’s claims) on appeal proceedings in the High Court. The matter concerned a “running account” defence to preference claims.
• A 3-week trial on behalf of a company in liquidation. Proved claims of fraudulent breaches of fiduciary and statutory duties, and dishonest assistance; defeated limitation and laches defences; obtained judgment for c.£162,000,000.
• A 5-day strike out/summary judgment application on a claim by a company in liquidation for breach of director’s duties, dishonest assistance, fraudulent misrepresentation.
• Obtaining s.236 orders against individuals, companies, and international financial institutions.
• Various cases involving breaches of directors’ duties, TUVs, s.423 transactions defrauding creditors, unlawful dividends, preferences, and directors’ loan accounts.
• Making and resisting applications to set aside statutory demands.
• Private examinations.
• Bankruptcy and winding up petitions, and rescission and annulment applications.
• Applications for injunctive relief.
• Possession and sale applications.
• Office-holder remuneration applications.
• Challenges to IVAs and CVAs.
• Representing a well-known football club, and the CVA supervisor of another well-known football club, in winding up proceedings.

Samuel is particularly interested in claims involving misfeasance, accessorial liability, asset tracing, property and fraud in an insolvency context.

Samuel acts and advises in relation to all aspects of commercial litigation and has been involved in a number of significant cases.

His experience includes:

• A 3-day appeal in the Court of Appeal on the law of remedies, in particular equitable compensation and accounts of profits.
• A 7-week Commercial Court trial in a case involving 48 parties, concerning competing proprietary claims to high value assets. Issues of whether a transfer of assets worth in excess of £250m had been procured by fraud, bribery and blackmail; the bona fide purchaser defence; equitable liens; tracing and equitable priority; equitable assignments; the law of contractual construction; whether Jersey law recognises constructive trusts over land.
• Running a complex Marex tort and s.423 claim in the High Court, seeking to unwind an anti-enforcement scheme, and to injunct the perpetrators.
• A security for costs application in the High Court, where the adequacy of protection afforded by an ATE policy, and the financial standing of the insurer, was in issue.
• Acting since mid-2019 as first junior in a complex claim involving allegations of fraud, self-dealing, secret nominees, bribery, dishonest assistance, which also had complex limitation issues. Succeeded at a 3-week trial and obtained judgment for in excess of £160m.
• Multiple hearings of complex CPR Part 71 judgment debtor examinations (and an application to set aside an examination order on multiple grounds including the orders for alternative service).
• Injunction applications, including worldwide freezing orders.
• Committal applications for breaches of freezing orders.
• A 3-day strike out application involving the availability of “backwards tracing” and election.
• Appearing in the High Court on behalf of a wife against her former husband and his associates. The wife had an unpaid financial remedies order against the husband worth over £40M. Samuel obtained 3 receivership orders over numerous high-value properties and shareholdings in Spain and Ireland.
• Claims for delivery up/money judgment on breaches of lease purchase or hire purchase agreements.
• Claims involving deceit, misrepresentation, breach of contract, conversion, wrongful interference with goods, unlawful interference with trade, undue influence, duress and lack of capacity.
• Applications concerning legal privilege, and to restrain use of documents.
• Applying for non-party costs orders, and wasted costs orders.

Samuel has a strong practice in real property law, and in residential and commercial landlord & tenant law.

His recent experience includes:

• Acting for lenders, borrowers and receivers in mortgage claims, including where there are allegations of undue influence and duress.
• Boundary disputes, and seeking injunctions for trespass and/or nuisance.
• Adverse possession.
• Claims for specific performance and delivery up.
• Easements, and seeking injunctions for interference.
• Claims concerning forfeiture, waiver, and relief from forfeiture.
• Rectification claims.
• Claims involving restrictive covenants.
• Proprietary estoppel claims.
• Claims involving chattels or fixtures.
• TOLATA claims, and common intention constructive trusts.
• Possession claims.
• Unlawful eviction claims.
• Acting for a purchaser on a summary judgment application, and trial, concerning the specific performance of a contract for the sale of land; issues included: contractual formalities, undue influence, lack of capacity, duress, and fraudulent misrepresentation.
• Acting on a claim concerning construction of a trust deed relating to land, and whether a pre-emption clause in the deed had been properly triggered.
• Disrepair claims, and claims for breach of quiet enjoyment covenant / derogation from grant.

Samuel is an editor of the “Tenant’s Remedies” chapter of The Landlord & Tenant Factbook (Ch 8B).

He has also written an article for the PLC Property Litigation Column: “Tenancy deposits in flat shares: Sturgiss & Gupta v Boddy & Ors [2021] 7 WLUK 298” (August 2021)

Samuel has a strong practice in all areas of company law and general chancery, and has recently worked on high-profile cases involving breaches of directors’ duties, accessorial liability, and asset tracing.

He will accept instructions in a broad range of company law matters, for example relating to shareholders disputes, shareholders’ agreements, service agreements and restrictive covenants, unfair prejudice petitions, derivative actions, claims against directors, unlawful dividends claims, company restorations, and applications to extend time to register charges. Samuel will also accept instructions in matters concerning LLPs and partnerships.

Samuel is particularly interested in company law cases with insolvency, property and fraud aspects.

Samuel frequently acts in disputes involving banking and finance law, including:

• Acting in relation to mortgages, charges, debentures, guarantees, and lease/hire purchase agreements (including delivery up).
• Acting in claims involving issues under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
• Quincecare claims

Samuel accepts instructions in relation all aspects of Wills, Trusts & Probate.

Samuel’s recent case experience in these areas includes:

• Advising on the validity of wills and trusts, and whether there are grounds to set aside, e.g. on the basis of undue influence.
• Successfully acting for an executor in a claim for possession of property making up part of the estate, against a residuary beneficiary who had gone into occupation but who had refused to leave when the executor required possession so as to sell the property for the purposes of administering the estate.
• Advising a will beneficiary on options available to her in circumstances when one of her co-beneficiaries had moved into a property which the will had specified should be held for the beneficiaries in equal shares.
• Advising on whether a chain of representation had been broken, and whether a grant de bonis non administratis would be required.
• Advising an executor in a claim brought against the estate based on proprietary estoppel.
• Advising on proceedings under Part 64 CPR for administration of an estate of a deceased person.
• Acting in relation to s.50 AJA 1985 applications for the removal of executors.
• Advising on the proper construction of a deed of trust and whether a pre-emption clause had been properly triggered.

Samuel has recently advised in relation to a claim against a firm of solicitors for various failings in the conduct of litigation, and for failure to make a claim on behalf of a client on an ATE insurance policy within the appropriate time limit.

He has also recently assisted in a claim against a firm of solicitors where the LLP had first to be restored by Court order so that a negligence claim could be pursued. The claim was that the firm had been negligent in failing to advise on the true effect and requirements of a family trust set up for the benefit of the settlor’s children, which also involved s.14A Limitation Act 1980 and quantum issues. Samuel also advised the claimants on various points arising in relation to the Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Acts