Holyoake v Candy: threats or hard negotiation?

PART THREE: 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. Mark Holyoake claims that soon after the Candys lent him £12m to buy Grosvenor Gardens House they coerced him in to signing new loan agreements. In his evidence before the court, he said Christian Candy told him he would “go nuclear” and “take a wrecking ball to his life”. He also says Nick Candy told him his brother would sell the loan to Russian debt collectors who “would not think twice about seriously f***ing hurting you”. Holyoake said at one point Christian Candy told him: “you need to think about your pregnant wife”. The Candy brothers agree that they can be tough businessmen, but flatly deny that any threats were made against Holyoake or his family. Indeed, as far as they are concerned, these allegations are “spiteful” attempts to slur them and their businesses. “I am a businessman and a hard negotiator when I need to be,” Christian Candy testified, “but I would never resort to threats or illegal acts in order to complete a transaction”. He applied, he said, “legitimate, legal contractual pressure”. Nick Candy, for his part, also said under oath that he “never threatened Mark in his life with physical violence”. Usually in trials as long as this one, both sides start from polar opposites and before too long the outline of some sort of common ground begins to appear. Not in this case. Also, it would be usual for a dispute that is essentially about an alleged unfair debt to remain focused on that debt. In that respect also, this trial deviated well away from the norm. Both sides made wild allegations against each other. Holyoake’s side pushed the Candy brothers on their tax affairs and, in parallel with another famous property developer on the other side of the Atlantic, their links with Russia. The Candys fought fire with fire, laying into Holyoake’s financial statements and track record in business. At one point while on the witness stand, Nick Candy blurted out that he had heard Holyoake, while chief executive of a seafood importing business, had hired actors to staff a factory in China in order to mislead the Chinese authorities. If there is any common thread or shade of grey, it could be said to be the one that Mr Justice Nugee identified in the closing days of the trial. The Candys, for example, admit they misinformed Holyoake in an attempt to flush information out of him. They did this, they said, because they had reason to think they were dealing with a dishonest man. Holyoake also accepts that at times he told the Candys what they wanted to hear, essentially playing for time. The case is peppered with alleged lies, and the central allegations are so starkly put that middle ground is hard to find. As a result, Mr Justice Nugee will be writing up his judgment with great care. He will most likely spend the rest of the summer unpicking the story he found so unattractive, and working out exactly who lied, and when. Whatever he decides, this case, fought so hard and reported on so widely, has been an unwelcome experience for all concerned. Nick Candy said as much to Nugee, rather colourfully, while giving evidence.  “For the rest of my life, whatever happens” he said, “people are going to think — even if you find us completely innocent… there is going to be a slight smell, yes?” SEE ALSO: ■ Part 1: Combat by trial, the story so far ■ Part 2: Finding the truth in the lies ■ Part 3: Holyoake v Candy: threats or hard negotiation ■ Part 4: Holyoake v Candy: when friendship turns sour