Holyoake and Candy brothers brace for High Court showdown
Property developer Mark Holyoake will finally bring his hotly anticipated £100m-plus claim against Nick and Christian Candy to court this week.
Today, lawyers representing the rival parties met in a final preliminary hearing ahead of the eight-week trial, scheduled to begin on Wednesday.
Holyoake, who is suing the Candys and Christian’s CPC Group, is due to enter the witness box on Thursday to be cross-examined on his evidence, which takes up five witness statements. He is expected to be on the stand for more than a week.
Property developer Mark Holyoake will finally bring his hotly anticipated £100m-plus claim against Nick and Christian Candy to court this week.
Today, lawyers representing the rival parties met in a final preliminary hearing ahead of the eight-week trial, scheduled to begin on Wednesday.
Holyoake, who is suing the Candys and Christian’s CPC Group, is due to enter the witness box on Thursday to be cross-examined on his evidence, which takes up five witness statements. He is expected to be on the stand for more than a week.
Holyoake alleges an unlawful conspiracy on the part of the Candy brothers after they loaned him £12m in 2011 to pursue a Belgravia property development.
In an earlier ruling in the action, Mr Justice Nugee outlined the background of the dispute.
He said that, in 2011, Holyoake and his company Hotblack Holdings were seeking to purchase a substantial property in Grosvenor Gardens, Belgravia, and redevelop it with a view to making more than £100m profit.
He said that Holyoake approached Nicholas Candy, who he thought to be “an old friend” for the loan to help complete the purchase and proceed with the redevelopment.
The loan was made by the CPC Group, but the judge said: “It is the claimants’ claim that thereafter Mr Holyoake was subjected to a long-running, highly unpleasant and vitriolic campaign of threats, abuse, intimidation and coercion directed at himself and his family by the defendants.”
He said that Holyoake claims to have been “bullied and coerced” into entering a long series of further agreements with CPC, which were “highly disadvantageous” to him and his company. As a result, he claims that Hotblack was forced to sell the property at a loss in February 2014 and to pay a total of £37m to CPC, for an initial loan of £12m.
Holyoake alleges that he and his company are the “victims of a conspiracy” involving fraudulent misrepresentation, duress, intimidation, extortion and blackmail.
However, in their defence to the action, the judge said that the Candy brothers and other parties say that Holyoake and Hotblack settled any claims they may have had in a compromise agreement made in October 2013.
• To send feedback, e-mail jess.harrold@estatesgazette.com or tweet @jessharrold or @estatesgazette