Samuel Laughton

Ranked by the Legal 500 as a Leading Junior in both Property Litigation and Agriculture, Sam Laughton’s practice encompasses a broad range of Chancery litigation and advisory work, with a particular focus on both commercial and private disputes relating to property.

He is particularly skilled in multidisciplinary litigation, drawing on his expertise in: land contracts; restrictive covenants and easements; commercial and residential landlord and tenant; personal and corporate insolvency; commercial disputes and company law; family and corporate trusts; wills, probate and the administration of estates; and professional negligence arising out of these fields.

Commercial & Business Disputes

Sam has a long and wide experience in advising and litigating in such areas as contract, insolvency, company and partnership law.

Reported Cases:

• Re Burton Marsden Douglas (a firm) [2004] 3 All ER 222: A new partnership of solicitors was not treated as having taken over the debts of a previous partnership since the old partnership obligations had not been novated, lacking the agreement of the new partners and the creditor, or consideration. Furthermore, s.71 of the Solicitors Act 1974 did not by itself create a liability to make repayments on the part of someone who would not otherwise be subject to that liability.
• Ani v CCS Communication Control Systems [2004] All ER (D) 309: The claimant was entitled to judgment in respect of a sum of $US190,000 which he had paid towards a distribution agreement that the parties had never in fact effected; the contract entitled the defendant only to retain an initial payment of $US10,000 in those circumstances.
• Gill v Tsang [2003] All ER (D) 175: The court was not limited, in working out an order for specific performance of a contract, to the strict and precise terms of that contract. The court was giving effect to an equitable remedy on equitable principles; by doing so, it was indeed enforcing and giving effect to the substantive elements of the contract, of which specific performance had been ordered.
• Qayoumi v Qayoumi [2002] All ER (D) 353: A consent order was set aside in circumstances where a device had been employed to mislead the court.
• Re a debtor (No 2477 of 2001) [2001] All ER (D) 85: An appeal against a refusal to grant a bankruptcy order was dismissed since the relevant agreement was not binding on the debtor. Even if he was, then he was jointly and severally liable with the other co-founders, none of whom had signed the agreement. That was more of a liability than the debtor had ever intended to bear.