Latest in legal battle behind Birmingham’s ‘The Square’ development looks good for Leicester property investor

The long-running legal battle over Birmingham’s landmark development, The Square, has reached another significant milestone, after the High Court rejected a fresh attempt by property developer Samuel Ginda and his companies – 2020 Living Limited, Taylor Grange 2 Limited and TGDM One Limited – to partially lift a court-imposed sanction preventing them from defending a multi-million pound claim.

In a process drawn out over more than four years so far involving nearly 50 orders from the court, and a trial bundle of more than 30,000 pages of evidence, the latest decision leaves the developer unable to contest a potential eight-figure claim brought by Leicester-based investor Sanman Property Management Ltd – a dispute stemming from an ‘unlawful conspiracy’ to exclude Sanman from profits tied to the proposed 220-room hotel and current 30-storey residential tower in the city’s Broad Street.

Last summer, and following applications made by Sanman, the Birmingham developer’s defence was struck out and they were debarred from defending the claim shortly before trial, due to multiple breaches of court orders relating to disclosure of documentation.

The recent application to the High Court was the latest in a series of failed attempts to challenge or vary the original decision and permit Samuel Glinda and his companies to defend the claim.

Leicester property investor Sanman Property Management Ltd brought the claim against the defendants after providing the developer with a loan to secure an option to acquire the development land in Broad Street. In return, it was agreed Sanman would receive interest and a split of the profits.

However, the court heard that a sequence of transactions later occurred, without Sanman’s knowledge or involvement, that took the land purchased, with Sanman’s assistance, out of 2020 Living’s ownership and thus excluded Sanman from the profit generated. Sanman issued a claim for the loan value (which was repaid in 2021 following an initial judgment), interest and anticipated profits.

Our litigation team acted on behalf of Sanman, revealed the companies benefiting from the transactions for the development land were in fact owned by the same director (and beneficial owner) as 2020 Living, Mr Samuel Ginda.

Timeline

September 2024 – Our litigation team quickly applied for court order on behalf of Sanman for a declaration that the defendants’ evidence be struck out and debarred after multiple deadlines and extensions were missed. Ginda et al make cross application for relief from sanction, which is dismissed. Sanman’s application was successful on both strike out and debarral whilst the defendants’ was dismissed.

October 2024 – Trial on liability takes place where Sanman proved its case on the documentation and evidence and was awarded judgment in its favour. At the same trial, Sanman’s co-claimant Midland Premier Properties Limited -also represented by our team- obtained a judgment of £560m against the first defendant, property developer Rakesh Doal, on a separate claim.

January 2025 – Second application by the defendants for relief from sanction, which was dismissed at a hearing in March 2025 and Sanman were awarded their costs with a interim payments on account of costs and damages of £1.7m payable by the Defendants was ordered by the Court.

June 2025 – High Court rejected a third application by the defendants to challenge or vary the sanction.

Defendants will now take their case to the Court of Appeal.

The hearing for the court to decide on how much Sanman should be paid as a result of the defendants’ conspiracy and breach of contract is yet to be set.

Alex Ryan, legal director who worked on the matter, said: “It’s highly unusual to see a defence struck out, however, it is still the responsibility of the claimant to prove its claim, which was ultimately successful. This matter has been a lesson in patience for our client, and a lesson in meeting disclosure obligations and court orders for the defendant. We are delighted with the result so far for our client.”

On reviewing the evidence supplied by the claimants, Specialist Circuit Judge, His Honour Judge Rawlings deemed the loan agreement and agreement to share profit from the development was binding and that there had been a conspiracy by Mr Ginda to deprive Sanman of the profits from the deal.

James Woolstenhulme, dispute resolution partner, who led the claim said: “This is a long running and hotly contested piece of litigation with an outcome which is the culmination of many years work in the face of a bitterly fought defence. The Court has had to grapple with a complex fact pattern and has delivered a careful and considered, yet robust judgment which does justice to Sanman. The case is a real showcase for the quality of work the team here at Shakespeare Martineau can deliver and the Courts in Birmingham can service and resolve.”

Working alongside James and Alex were Natalie Thorpe (Associate), Nicola Lediard (Legal Director), Zoe Carney (Solicitor) and Jamilah Campbell (Solicitor).

Tim Speed, head of litigation said: “This is a great example of the members of the team working together across the various offices and it shows the genuine strength in depth that we have as a firm.”

Hill Dickinson solicitors act on behalf of the defendants.