Matthew Hodson

Areas of expertise

• Commercial dispute resolution
  • Commercial litigation

    Commercial litigation

    Matthew has a strong commercial dispute resolution practice covering high value commercial litigation concerning commercial entities of all types with an emphasis on joint venture, shareholder and partnership disputes, breach of shareholder agreement, misuse of company funds and diversion of business being particular strengths.  He also covers fraud and asset tracing as well as insolvency.

    He advises and represents individuals, businesses and insurance companies on a wide range of matters.

    Matthew is a regular speaker on commercial litigation issues, and in particular shareholder disputes, for MBL Seminars – you can watch him in action at this upcoming event: Defences to Shareholder Litigation – Live at Your Desk – Learn Live.

    His recent experience includes:

    • Numerous unfair prejudice petition cases involving issues arising from fraudulent misuse of funds, diversion of business, improper dilution of shareholding and quasi-partnership disputes.
    • Towergate v Clark [2020] EWHC 984 (Comm): One of the first ‘remote’ High Court trials. Matthew represented the defendants in this claim which was dismissed following trial of a preliminary issue to determine the construction of a condition precedent relating to notice in a share purchase agreement.
    • Simon Kelly v Raymond Kelly [2020] 3 WLUK 94; [2020] 3 WLUK 217: A seven figure claim by a father against a son for repayment of a loan, it being alleged that the money was in fact advanced as a gift.
    • Towergate v Hopkinson [2018] EWCA Civ 2744: A seven figure share purchase agreement dispute, relating to the interpretation and construction of an indemnity clause.
    • Kelly v Bluebridge: A long running shareholder dispute between father and son over a multi-million pound business. The matter has been resolved by successful prosecution of an unfair prejudice petition.
    • An arbitration to determine the enforceability of a restrictive covenant barring competition by a management consultant with a seven-figure annual salary.
    • A joint venture dispute relating to the purchase and renovation of properties without properly agreeing terms of business first, involving breach of contract and trust issues (per Pallant v Morgan) as well as misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.
    • A proprietary estoppel claim involving a company employee who had worked for a business in expectation of an interest in the company.
    • Restraining presentation of a winding up petition against a company on the basis of a genuine and substantial dispute.
    • Advice on negotiating disqualification periods for company directors.
    • Theft and misuse of company confidential information claim.
    • A case involving the fraudulent imposition of fake landlord and tenant contracts on a developer by an estate agent.
    • Advice on jurisdiction and procedure for recovery of contract sums relating to professional advisory work performed internationally and outside of the EU.
    • Claims by professionals for recovery of unpaid fees.
  • Employment & executive disputes

    Employment & executive disputes

    Matthew regularly provides representation in the High Court and in arbitrations in cases with a commercial angle such as those involving employee competition (i.e. restrictive covenants and springboard relief, whistleblowing or breach of shareholder/director’s duties).

    Matthew is ranked in the Legal 500 as “a go-to guy” for employment disputes and who “achieves sensational results.”

    He also commonly undertakes cases in the employment tribunals and the EAT on a range of matters. He acts for both employees and employers. He has particular expertise in discrimination cases and has recently advised and appeared in several disability, pregnancy, sex and sexual harassment disputes.

    Matthew is a member of the ELAAS scheme, providing pro-bono representation to appellants in the EAT. He is also a speaker on employment issues for White Paper conferences.

    Matthew is putting himself at the forefront of the legal issues arising from the deployment of AI decision making. This is particularly relevant to employment law where examples of discriminatory AI decisions are becoming more and more common in the areas of recruitment and performance management particularly. It also has ramifications in the commercial and insurance industries where sometimes significant losses can arise from arguably negligent AI decision making or deployment. With his technical understanding Matthew is perfectly positioned to assist on any issues arising in these areas, and is staying abreast of the interesting developments at national and international levels.

    His recent experience includes:

    • Hurynovich v Ben Ong Ltd [2022] 3313304/2019 – reported in the national press; a claim in which Matthew defended a company accused of disability discrimination and whistleblowing.
    • An age discrimination claim by a tennis coach against a top 10 private members’ tennis club, raising issues of employee / worker status.
    • A six figure claim by a consultant against a recruitment agency arising from race discrimination and whistleblowing.
    • A six figure claim against a national service provider arising from disability discrimination and sham redundancy.
    • Fox v South Essex Academy Trust (2019) UKEAT/0093/19/RN – An appeal in a disability discrimination claim concerning the tribunal’s failure to take into account relevant evidence.
    • Dagorne v Petit Forestier (UK) Ltd (2018) WL 04698261 – A claim for damages arising out of a negligent and defamatory employment reference.
    • A claim against a foreign embassy for unfair dismissal and sex discrimination, involving an issue of state immunity.
    • An arbitration to determine the enforceability of a restrictive covenant barring competition by a management consultant with a seven-figure annual salary.
    • A whistleblowing claim by a senior risk management employee against a fund management company.
    • Unfair dismissal of company directors for breach of fiduciary duty.
    • Claims involving allegations of sexual harassment by senior male managers against junior female employees.
    • A claim of race discrimination by an area manager who was dismissed in circumstances where the employer claimed there were performance and conduct issues.
    • A pregnancy discrimination claim by an employee whose business moved to a new location during her maternity leave and who was not kept properly informed of developments.
    • A disability discrimination claim by a senior employee of a marketing agency who pushed her to work too hard on return after going to into remission following bowel cancer.
    • A whistleblowing and disability discrimination claim by a senior custody officer against a provider of security services.
    • A claim of sex and race discrimination by two employees of a foreign state that relied upon state immunity as a defence.
    • Countrywide Estate Agents v Turner (2014) UKEAT/0208/13/LA; WL4250036; LTL 8/9/2014. An appeal to the EAT to determine the correct basis of contractual and compensatory damages following unfair dismissal.
    • Indigo Design Build & Management v Martinez (2014) UKEAT/0020/14/DM; WL 4423177; LTL 11/9/14. Appeal before the EAT to determine the correct “reason why” legal test for direct pregnancy and maternity discrimination.

    • Previous significant reported cases on employee competition include:

    • Customer Systems v Ranson [2011] EWHC 3304
    • Tim Russ & Co v Roberston [2011] EWHC 3470
• Private client
  • Contentious Probate & Inheritance Act claims

    Contentious Probate & Inheritance Act claims

    Matthew’s private client practice is now his primary focus following an exponential growth in the number of instructions he receives, usually by word of mouth recommendation. He has a reputation for achieving good results in contested adversarial trials and at mediation.

    Matthew is a regular speaking on private client issues for MBL Seminars and White Paper Conferences. He is an associate member of ACTAPS.

    His recent experience includes advising on and appearing in numerous cases dealing with the following:

    • Inheritance Act 1975 claims.
    • Removal of executors, personal representatives and trustees.
    • Construal of ambiguous wills and trusts.
    • Testamentary capacity.
    • Knowledge and approval.
    • Undue influence.
    • Fraudulent calumny.
    • Statutory wills.
    • Mutual wills.
    • Proprietary and promissory estoppel.
    • Common intention trusts.
  • Trusts including TOLATA

    Trusts including TOLATA

    Matthew regularly advises and represents clients in claims involving trusts or estoppel, often between co-habiting partners or otherwise in a commercial context.

    Matthew is an associate member of ACTAPS.

    His recent work includes:

    • Simon Kelly v Raymond Kelly [2020] 3 WLUK 94; [2020] 3 WLUK 217: A seven figure claim by a father against a son for repayment of a loan, it being alleged that the money was in fact advanced as a gift.
    • A claim for a common intention constructive trust on the basis of an agreement between two co-habiting partners that the home owned by only one of them should be held upon that parties’ death to bring up their child.
    • A claim based on trust and proprietary estoppel for a share in the family business.
    • A defence based on proprietary estoppel to a claim by a bank for a half share in a domestic property as a result of an irregular mortgage.
    • A case involving the negligent failure of a trustee to prevent his co-trustee from squandering trust assets in a series of ill-judged investments during the 2007 financial crash.
• Defamation

  Defamation

  Matthew is regularly instructed in media and defamation matters. He is experienced in drafting claims, seeking and opposing injunctive relief, obtaining strike out or summary judgment at an early stage or appearing at trial or mediation as may be required. His clients have included an MP, actors, doctors, members of local government, businessmen, employees and lawyers, all seeking to protect their reputations. He has also defended international businesses such as broadcasting companies, hotel groups and law firms from defamation actions.

  His reported cases include:

  • Hemming v Poulton [2023] EWHC 3001 KB, [2021] EWHC 3863 – an ongoing case in which Matthew is representing an ex-MP in a claim against a journalist.
  • Dagorne v Petit Forestier (UK) Ltd (2018) WL 04698261 – a claim for damages arising out of a negligent and defamatory employment reference
  • Lloyd v Rawding & Otrs [2017] EWHC 1854 in which the claimant’s slander claim against his clients was struck out.
  • Kim v Park & Otrs [2013] EWHC 3568 in which he obtained strike out of a newspaper’s defence to his client’s libel claim.

  Other recent cases have included:

  • Statements made by a Pakistani Sky television broadcasting company to the effect that an individual was a murderer and blackmailer.
  • Statements made by an Afghan Sky television broadcasting company to the effect that an individual who made a speech to the UN was having an affair and was pro-Taliban.
  • Statements made in national newspapers alleging that the police were investigating an actor for hate crimes.
  • Statements made in ex-pat Korean newspapers describing an individual as a ‘conman’ and ‘fraudulent’.
  • Statements made in a work email published to the whole business describing an employee as ‘AWOL’, ‘behind in his work’ and ‘playing one person off against another’.
  • Statements made in a public objection to a planning development describing the applicant businessman as ‘ethically questionable’ and untrustworthy.
  • A claim made by an expert witness against the other side’s solicitors, relating to comments made about that expert in open correspondence.
  • Statements made in a newspaper that a public figure had ‘rigged an election’ and had lost public office on account of ‘dishonourable conduct’.
  • An allegation made in a hotel lobby that an individual was subject to a police restraining order preventing him from coming near an employee.
  • Statements published in online blogs and forums to the effect that an individual appearing in court was not a qualified solicitor and was therefore not entitled to be making representations.
• Legal professionals

  Legal professionals

  Matthew has a niche specialism in professional negligence cases involving solicitors and barristers. He is regularly instructed on behalf of claimants to deal with a range of negligence cases but particularly those involving the underlying areas he has expertise in – commercial, private client and employment law.

  Recent work includes claims against:

  • a barrister for failing to give proper advice on settlement at the door of court;
  • a barrister and solicitor for advising in favour of a settlement at an undervalue;
  • a solicitor for negligence in failing to conduct adequate searches during a conveyancing instruction;
  • a solicitor for advising family members in circumstances where he stood to gain significant benefit from that advice and had a clear conflict of interest;
  • a major national firm of solicitors for negligence in negotiating and drafting a share purchase agreement.