Hugh Jory QC’s practice focuses on commercial litigation for domestic and international clients and includes company and insolvency law disputes, partnership actions, banking, guarantees, civil fraud, and contract disputes.
Hugh’s recommendations as a Leading Silk by Chambers & Partners and Legal 500 extend to Commercial Dispute Resolution, Chancery: Commercial and Restructuring and Insolvency / Banking.
Since taking silk in 2014, Hugh has been described as “an excellent advocate – he’s very persuasive and has the ear of the court. He knows how far to push and he is very good with his instructing solicitors.” “He gives very clear and practical advice, and goes above and beyond to gets things done.” (Chambers & Partners 2020)
Hugh’s work for international clients includes cases of fraud such as acting Ukrainian company defrauded by a Ukrainian national in the UK who faked banking transactions in the course of the export of sunflower oil, where he acted for the successful Ukrainian company both at first instance and in the Court of Appeal.
He acts in a wide range of matters for overseas clients, such as an investor based in Monaco in respect of a multi-million dollar action arising from breach of contract in the sale and purchase of high yield un-listed corporate bonds and in the field of sport, for the owners of the southern hemisphere breeding rights based in Australia in relation to a well-known thoroughbred stallion against the owners of the northern hemisphere breeding rights based in the UK. He has also acted for a UAE company and its director in defending a multi-million dollar claim brought against them by Cayman and Bermuda based liquidators, and for various overseas companies forming part a worldwide foreign exchange group based in China and for their directors in litigation concerning the control of an FCA regulated UK company and claims against a former director and is now acting for a German defendant in the Danish Customs case in London. His advisory work has included advising directors in off-shore jurisdictions in respect of directors duties.
Hugh speaks Italian, has acted for a number of Italian-speaking clients and has close connections with Italy.
For domestic clients, in insolvency related cases Hugh acted for insolvency practitioners in one of the first Special Administrations (in respect of a stockbroking company), and acts regularly for insolvency practitioners in claims against former directors and others, as well as in complex disputes which require directions to office holders from the court (in one recent case being directions sought by joint administrators of a substantial farming partnership to determine the entitlements of different creditors involving the application of principles of marshalling in the context of agricultural charges, and of subrogation in respect of claims made by trustees in bankruptcy of the former partners). Hugh is also regularly instructed for directors in claims against them brought by office holders (in one recent case in relation to distribution of a £21m dividend, and in another relating to a dividend in specie of £380m which he successfully applied to strike out) He also acts for directors in disqualification proceedings including defending two accountants at a trial which saw the Secretary of State’s case against them dismissed.
In company law related cases, Hugh is regularly instructed in substantial shareholder disputes and derivative claims. He has acted for and against private equity investors in shareholder disputes, in disputes about the ownership of football clubs and in relation to family companies, as well as for shareholders who formed companies together as business partners.
Hugh’s previous career at an investment bank in the City gave him particular familiarity with company reports and accounts and of share valuation which is of particular relevance to shareholders’ unfair prejudice petitions and to claims for breach of warranty arising from share sale agreements.
Hugh also acts in claims for breaches of directors’ duties, including claims relating to distributions of dividends, as well as in proceedings (including injunctive proceedings) relating to breaches of restrictive covenants in share sale and employment contracts and claims relating to mis-use of confidential information.
Hugh is regularly instructed in partnership disputes (including arbitrations) particularly those involving solicitors’ firms (including LLPs) and other professional partnerships as well as disputes concerning franchise and business sale agreements. He acted for the successful claimant practice manager against the General Practitioner in the recent partnership case of Sidhu v Rathor, establishing that there had been a partnership agreement between them which the GP denied, and that the GP’s allegations of fraud were made up against her and it was GP who was lying and and had lied to the police.
Quotes from the legal directories over the last few years include:
“He is articulate, persuasive in court and he understands the intricacies of finance and commerce.” (Legal 500 2021)
“A go-to for insolvency and commercial cases.” (Legal 500 2020)
“He’s very good technically, very astute and good tactically. He’s both affable and amiable.” (Chambers & Partners 2020)
“He’s a great advocate who clearly has huge technical ability, yet is able to present a story and its context without being unduly technical.” (Chambers & Partners 2020)
“Incredibly measured and clients really warm to his calm, authoritative manner. He has an unflappable confidence which is infectious and he has the ear of the bench.” “He is a very good cross-examiner and is never fazed by anything” (Chambers & Partners 2019: Restructuring/Insolvency)
“He’s a very good advocate who can be both aggressive and subtle.” “Incredibly knowledgeable, very approachable and well respected among practitioners.” (Chambers & Partners 2019: Commercial Dispute Resolution)
“Very pragmatic and hard-working, he is immensely popular with clients and easy to get along with.” “Thoroughly reliable and someone who knows the law inside out.” (Chambers & Partners 2019: Chancery: Commercial)
“Simply excellent, he is great at playing devil’s advocate and never misses a thing. Day or night, he is always available to assist. When on his feet, he is fantastic. He never embarrasses instructing solicitors, but looks after and protects them, fighting his case in a wonderfully charming and very proficient way.” (Chambers & Partners 2018)
“Immensely popular with clients” “A highly intelligent advocate; judges respect him”,“very pragmatic and hard-working as well as immensely popular with clients and easy to get along with. A top chancery barrister”, “he’s a calm, unflappable person. If you’ve got something complicated, he’s a very good lawyer to go to.” (Chambers & Partners 2018)
“A highly intelligent advocate; judges respect him” (Legal 500 2017)
“An absolute star – he simply wipes the floor with other advocates”, “he is extremely sharp and very impressive in the court room”, “simply excellent, he is great at playing devil’s advocate and never misses a thing. Day or night, he is always available to assist. When on his feet, he is fantastic…” “A highly intelligent advocate; judges respect him”, “a top chancery barrister”, “a superb silk” (Chambers & Partners 2017)
“He is very good on his feet, excellent in cross examination and very good tactically, thinking several moves ahead”, “his advocacy was exceptional and he was fantastic with the client, making difficult points seem simple”, “his banking background, easy manner and authoritative advice makes heavyweight corporate insolvency and banking work a breeze.” (Chambers & Partners 2017)
“He is a fearless, highly effective advocate. He is confidence-inspiring and a pleasure to work with”, “he is knowledgeable and approachable and has a good rapport with judges. He is extremely thorough with an encyclopaedic knowledge of the law.” (Chambers & Partners 2016)
- Sidhu v Rathor  EWHC 1916 (Ch)
- Brian Johnson v Beighton  EWHC 895 (Ch)
- Jack v Riches [ 2019] 1744 (QB)
- Alex Reid Ltd v Walker  EWHC 3194 (Ch)
- Inter Export LLC v Townley and Lasystsya  EWCA Civ 2068
- Brian Johnson v Arden & Oths  EWHC 1624 (ch)
- LRH Services Ltd v Trew and Others  EWHC 600
- Metro Financial v Tenet (LTL 15/12/2017)
- McLean and Petts (Joint Administrators of Dent Co (a partnership)) v Berry and Chadwick  EWHC 2650 (Ch)
- Roy Butterworth v Cameron Lang  EWHC 529 (Ch)
- Electrosteel Castings (UK) Ltd v Metalpol Ltd 2014] EWHC 2017 (Ch)
- SDL Hair Ltd v Next Row Ltd & Ors  EWHC 2084 (IPEG)
- Swinton Reds 20 Ltd v Gerard Martin McCrory & Anor  EWHC 2152 (Ch)
- Ackroyd & Ors v Hollely & Anor (LTL 5/3/2013)
- One World (GB) Ltd v Elite Mobile Ltd  EWHC 3706 (QB)
- Hughes v Weiss & Anor  EWHC 2363 (Ch)
- Re: Mumtaz Properties Ltd  EWCA Civ 610
- Goldenfry Foods Ltd v Austin & Oths  EWHC 137 (QB)
- Twizell v Entrust  EWCA Civ 1192
- Corbett v Nysir UK Ltd  EWHC 2670 (Ch)
- Henry Butcher International Ltd. v KG Engineering, K Gyte & B Gyte  EWCA Civ 1597
- Hollicourt (Contracts) Ltd. v Bank of Ireland  Ch 555 (CA)