The Court of Appeal has rejected Mark Holyoake’s bid to challenge a high court ruling dismissing his £100m-plus claim against Christian and Nick Candy.
Lord Justice David Richards refused Holyoake permission to appeal in the case, meaning Mr Justice Nugee’s decision last December will now stand.
And it emerged that Holyoake was ordered to pay the defendants “indemnity costs” – the highest level of legal costs – following his high court defeat, subject to only a 3% reduction. A representative for Holyoake said that the costs bill of £5.7m was paid in January, largely by insurers, with Holyoake himself only having had to pay £200,000.
See also: Holyoake v Candy: the case in detail
Holyoake had only pursued one main avenue of appeal, which, if it had proceeded, would have done so solely against Christian Candy’s CPC Group, rather than against Christian or Nick Candy personally.
He had sought to reopen the loan agreements first made in 2011 on the basis that there had been an “unfair relationship” under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
Roger Stewart QC, representing Holyoake, had argued that his client had a real prospect of success in his claim that the high court judge had “applied the wrong test” in deciding that there was “no unfair relationship” between the parties.
He cited, as an example of that allegedly unfair relationship, “astronomical” loan extension fees that included, at one point £1.5m for a one-month extension that amounted to interest as high as 421%.
He claimed that there was a “compelling reason” for the appeal to be heard, in order to provide guidance to the lower courts on the application of the “unfair relationship jurisdiction” under the 1974 Act.
However, rejecting those arguments, Lord Justice David Richards said he had “no real prospect of success”.
In giving judgment, he said that Holyoake had not sought permission to appeal in respect of the numerous other claims he had made against the Candy brothers at trial, including fraudulent misrepresentation, duress, extortion and conspiracy.
He said that it was “fair to record” that the high court judge had made “findings adverse to some of the individual defendants”.
But he said that when Mr Justice Nugee had set those findings against his conclusion that Holyoake had “been dishonest” and “lied on multiple occasions”, the high court judge reduced the legal costs Holyoake must pay to the defendants by only 3%.
See also: Holyoake v Candy: Judge’s juicy judgment
Last December, in a near 200-page judgment, Mr Justice Nugee found that Holyoake “repeatedly lied” and “resorted to forgery, deceit and impersonation” in his claim against Nick and Christian Candy, and Christian’s company, CPC Group.
Holyoake sued the Candy brothers for more than £100m, claiming they “coerced” him out of millions of pounds after they lent him £12m to buy a Belgravia mansion, and used heavy-handed intimidation tactics to recoup the money.
The claims were vehemently denied by the Candys, whose legal team said Holyoake was a “dishonest” businessman with an “Alice in Wonderland” approach to commercial life, who lied to them even before they lent him money.
To send feedback, e-mail jess.harrold@egi.co.uk or tweet @jessharrold or @estatesgazette
