Holyoake versus Candys case draws to a close

Closing arguments in the explosive legal case between Mark Holyoake and Christian and Nick Candy were due to come to an end on 7 April with both sides seeking to discredit the other. 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, SW1, and used heavy-handed intimidation tactics to recoup the money. The trial began on 8 February and a judgment is not expected until the end of May. Holyoake’s QC accused the Candys of being “rotten from tip to toe”, adding that Nick Candy was one of the “controlling minds” of Christian’s company, CPC Group. This he said “corrupts the whole of the organisation” and is part of a “deliberate, calculated and determined attempt to divert hundreds of millions of pounds of tax”. Holyoake’s team said there was “direct evidence” he had been threatened and blackmailed, and the Candys had acted in “reprehensible ways”. The claims are 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. It was said that during the trial the court had learnt that Holyoake misled the Candys about his wealth when asking for the loan in a net asset statement that claimed he was worth around £140m when he later accepted he was really worth close to £80m. This “entirely demolishes” Holyoake’s claim according to the Candys as it proves “he was in breach of the loan agreement from day one”. The Candys’ legal team said Holyoake “is the sort of person who, if [he] wants your money, you are his friend, but if you want it back, you are a villain”. During proceedings on 5 April judge Justice Nugee said: “Both sides appear to lie when it suits their commercial interests…. The court can’t ignore this…. I’m going to have to decide who lied when.”