PART TWO: As the wait continues for the judgment on one of the most explosive cases of the year, EG looks at how the seven-month battle between Christian and Nick Candy and Mark Holyoake has unfurled.
As London’s civil court winds down for the summer, it’s looking increasingly unlikely that judge Mr Justice Nugee will give his decision in the dispute between Mark Holyoake and the Candy brothers before October. But the ruling on what the trial judge called “not a very attractive story” will almost certainly be worth the wait.
It was the final week of a trial that had been going on for the best part of two months. Roger Stewart QC, the lead barrister for Mark Holyoake, and Tim Lord QC, heading the team for Nick and Christian Candy, were, like every other day, laying into the reputations of each other’s client.
After a particularly hard-fought point from Stewart, the judge, Sir Christopher Nugee, addressed the elephant in the room.
“The evidence I have heard is not a very attractive story,” he said. “Both sides appear to lie when it suits their commercial interests.
“The court can’t ignore this,” he said. “I’m going to have to decide who lied when.” Then a pause. “It has to be said,” he added.
There was a brief silence before the lawyers got back to exchanging their shots.
This was never going to be a friendly fixture. The allegations at the heart of the case are altogether too nasty.
Mark Holyoake, a serial entrepreneur, claims high-profile property tycoons the Candy brothers threatened him and his family, and “coerced” him out of millions of pounds after they lent him £12m to buy Belgravia mansion Grosvenor Gardens House.
The evidence I have heard is not a very attractive story. Both sides appear to lie when it suits their commercial interests. I’m going to have to decide who lied when” – judge Sir Christopher Nugee
The allegations against the brothers include blackmail, duress, extortion and intimidation. Holyoake is seeking more than £130m in damages.
The Candy brothers strongly deny all his claims. They say his allegations of coercion are fabricated. They maintain that Holyoake was an unreliable creditor who lied to them from the start.
To make matters worse, Holyoake and Nick Candy were formerly good friends. Nick asked his brother Christian to lend Holyoake the £12m at the centre of the dispute. But, before too long, things had become much less amicable.
SEE ALSO:
■ Part 1: Combat by trial, the story so far
■ Part 2: Finding the truth in the lies
