Property developer Christian Candy told a London court that, although his brother Nicholas Candy is his “lifelong business partner” he is not, and has never been, a director of development company CPC Group.
Candy was speaking from the witness stand in a court case brought against him, his brother and CPC Group by former business associate and businessman Mark Holyoake. The trial has now entered its fourth week, and is scheduled to last another two.
Holyoake is suing brothers Mark and Christian Candy for more than £100m, claiming they “coerced” him out of millions of pounds after Christian Candy’s company CPC lent him £12m to buy Belgravia Mansion Grosvenor Gardens House in late 2011.
The Candy brothers strongly refute the allegations and say that Holyoake was an unreliable creditor who lied to them from the start. They say that Holyoake’s allegations of coercion are fabricated.
Today, Holyoake’s barrister Roger Stewart focused his questions on the tax affairs of CPC Group and Christian Candy’s relationship with his brother. Christian Candy asserted that he runs CPC Group and, although he takes advice from his brother, Nicholas Candy has “no power, no control” and no shares in CPC.
“If you and your brother are, in truth, the true owners of CPC,” Stewart asked, “then vast sums have not been paid to Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs? You do understand the question Mr Candy? You aren’t a stupid man, are you?”
“If Nick Candy were a co-owner, which he never was, then yes, money would be owed to the revenue,” Candy said.
Stewart put it to him that both brothers were open about the fact that the “true situation” was that CPC Group was jointly run by both of them.
“This is just the same question again,” Christian Candy said. “Nick has never been a shareholder or director of CPC Group, and this is just pure noise from the claimants to make trouble,” he said.
“Nick has no power, no control. He gave me advice as a brother on several matters. He still does.”
“I am the 100% owner of CPC Group,” he said.
Earlier in the hearing Nick Candy agreed that CPC Group is “much larger” than Candy & Candy, which he said is owned by Nicholas Candy. Even so, Nicholas said, “my father wanted me to equalise the wealth. I have given my brother gifts, I’ve given my father gifts, I’ve given my wife gifts.”
He said that while there was not any form of partnership agreement between him and his brother in relationship to CPC Group, as brothers, they were “lifelong business partners”.
“We have run a business together. We are incredibly close. Sometimes we haven’t been so close…but I love my brother as a brother, and he is my lifelong business partner,” he said. He speaks to his brother every day, and it is “normal” that he should seek his advice, Nicholas Candy said.
Today is Christian Candy’s second day on the witness stand. He is expected to remain on the stand for at least three more days. His carefully written 120-page witness statement has been released to reporters.
In it, he thoroughly refutes Hollyoake’s suggestion that he intimidated, bullied or made threats.
“A large number of untrue, unpleasant and misleading allegations have been made against me and the defendants, which I reject,” he said.
“Mr Holyoake borrowed a significant unsecured loan from CPC, on an extremely urgent basis, and offered and agreed terms which he thought were required in order to secure the funding he needed,” Christian Candy said.
Even so, Holyoake “failed to keep his side of the bargain”. He said Holyoake “repeatedly misled” CPC to avoid repayment. In the end, it took two years for the money to be repaid, he said.
Although lawyers for the Candys have been challenging witnesses brought by Holyoake, this is the first time the Candys themselves have had an opportunity to give their account of the events that led to the lawsuit.
Giving evidence earlier in the case, Holyoake said that he approached Nick Candy, a university friend, for an unsecured loan to help him with a property transaction.
He alleges that soon after the loan was provided by Christian Candy’s company, the brother subjected him to a campaign of threats and intimidation with the intention of “stealing the asset” and getting as much money out of him as possible.
He alleges that Christian Candy told him he would deliberately engineer a situation that would put Holyoake’s then-pregnant wife Emma, who had previously suffered a miscarriage, under extreme stress.
Candy, in his witness statement, said he never resorted to threats, and that he remained professional at all times.
“It took a significant amount of hard work by me and my team at CPC to recover that money from Mr Holyoake, but this was done in a professional manner and, at all times, with a focus on commercial reality,” Christian Candy said.
“I am a businessman, and I am a hard negotiator when I need to be, but I would never, and never did in the context of my dealings with Mr Holyoake, resort to threats or illegal acts in order to complete a transaction.”
The trial continues.
