The organisation of Christian and Nick Candy’s business is “rotten from tip to toe”, the judge hearing property developer Mark Holyoake’s claim against them was told today, as closing arguments in the case began.
Roger Stewart QC made the claim that, contrary to the brothers’ assertions, Nick Candy is one of the “controlling minds” of Christian’s company, CPC Group, as he began oral submissions supplementing a written closing argument that extends to 232 pages.
However, the court heard that, in a closing statement on behalf of the Candys that is 40 pages longer, they brand Holyoake’s claims as “intrinsically implausible” and not supported by the evidence.
The extensive documents sum up each side’s case in the explosive trial, in which Holyoake is suing the Candy brothers for more than £100m, claiming they “coerced” him out of millions of pounds after they lent him £12m to buy Belgravia mansion Grosvenor Gardens House.
The trial began on 8 February, but the closing arguments will finally bring an end to the proceedings this week, after which a waiting game will begin for Mr Justice Nugee to deliver his judgment. That process could take several weeks.
Beginning his closing arguments, Stewart told the judge that his client’s claims in relation to Nick Candy’s involvement in CPC is central to his case.
He said: “The claimant’s case is that the defendants’ organisation is rotten from tip to toe. Rotten, because it is based on, essentially, a lie that the sole owner of CPC is Christian Candy.”
Adding that that “corrupts the whole of the organisation”, he said: “Without spin, without implausible explanation and without explanations that are on occasions contradictory, the documents only tell one story: that is Nick Candy being an intricate part and controller of CPC.”
He said that that is backed up by numerous e-mail exchanges in evidence, which contain “not just loose language”, but instead “assertions of ownership” in respect of CPC by Nick Candy.
The judge raised the possibility that the Candy brothers may have entered into an “entirely informal, non-legal, non-enforceable agreement” that, although the business is owned by Chris, he would “not see his brother starve”.
However, Stewart responded: “That would be a very, very generous interpretation of the factual position. The evidence does not fit it.”
In his extensive written closing submissions, he added that this “lie at the very heart of CPC” is a “deliberate, calculated and determined attempt to divert hundreds of millions of pounds of tax”.
He said that the alleged lie has continued for many years, adding: “It is even possible that somehow the defendants have come to believe that what they are doing and undertaking is acceptable or even ordinary business behaviour. Christian Candy and Nick Candy have become so used to permanent and consistent dishonesty that it has become their way of life. It runs through the very centre of their business activities and colours every aspect of it.”
Referring to the alleged coercion of his client, Stewart said: “It is accepted that people do not usually threaten other people nor blackmail them nor act in the other reprehensible ways that are alleged against the defendants. However, here there is direct evidence that the defendants have acted in such ways.”
In his own written closing submissions, referred to in court this morning, Tim Lord QC, representing the Candys, said: “The allegations are intrinsically implausible: why would high-profile, successful businessmen, operating in the full glare of the London and international property market, engage in the sort of criminal behaviour alleged? The claimants’ case is not just implausible, it is fanciful. Unsurprisingly, the claimants’ allegations find no support whatsoever in the 23,000 pages of chronological documents in the trial bundle.
“Indeed, Mr Holyoake’s own communications, both to CPC and his associates, as well as his legal advisers, directly contradict the idea that his will was overborne or that he felt physically threatened.
“The inherent probabilities are therefore aligned with the contemporary documents, and comprehensively disprove Mr Holyoake’s wild and unpleasant claims.”
He added: “As the evidence has shown, Mr Holyoake (and those standing with him) were consistently dishonest in their dealings with CPC and others; that dishonesty has persisted into the formulation and prosecution of these claims. It is obvious that Mr Holyoake thought that he could nevertheless force the defendants to come to terms by fabricating and publicising complaints of the most serious, and damaging, kind, none of which have found even the slightest support in the evidence.
“These have been truly disgraceful claims, made and pursued in bad faith, which deserve wholeheartedly to be dismissed.”
To send feedback, e-mail jess.harrold@egi.co.uk or tweet @jessharrold or @estatesgazette
