(3) Investigation
255.The investigation commissioned of the auditors was targeted at Lisa only. Its aim was to provide a pretext to dismiss Lisa. “Accordingly” John and Charles failed to cause the auditors to investigate their own misconduct and/or supplied false information to the auditors to set up Lisa and disguise their own misconduct, all of which amounted to one or more breaches of directors’ duties by them (paragraph 17 of the Petition).256.I should make clear at this point that, as the evidence emerged, the persons dealing with the investigation were doing so as company accountants not the separate team that dealt with audit matters.(4)
- Approved Judgment
- Introduction
- The Disputed Strip
- Representation before me
- The direction for a split trial and the trial before me
- The Hughes’ family and an overview of some of the Hughes’ businesses
- Portbond and LWC: Directors, shareholders and entry into administration
- The alleged acts of, or conduct of the Companies’ affairs, said to amount to unfair prejudice: summary
- Unfair prejudice
- [630]
- [631]
- [11]
- [12]
- Gamlestaden Fastigheter AB v Balti Partners Ltd
- Statements of case and amendment
- Approach to the Evidence
- Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd
- Lachaux v Lachaux
- Carmarthenshire County Council v Y
- Kimathi v Foreign and Commonwealth Office
- Gestmin:
- iii) Carmarthenshire County Council:
- Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SA
- Armagas v Mundogas
- The Ocean Frost,
- Charlie Pickering
- Mr Gregory
- David Clarkson
- Charles Hughes
- James
- Mr Greg Lacey: Expert
- Conduct in relation to other Hughes’ family companies
- 7,500
- Allegations in the Petition regarding alleged “cash sales” (stock sold for unaccounted cash); false allegations concerning, and unfair investigation of, payments to Lisa; removal of Lisa and Charlie from the Companies; legal proceedings against Lisa known to be on a false basis
- Cash sales
- Dismissal/Removal of Lisa
- (3) Investigation
- Causing the company to issue proceedings against Lisa
- Dismissal of Charlie from employment
- Directors’ loan accounts and the alleged cash sales of stock
- Lisa Pickering
- Repayment
- Proceedings
- Conclusion
- Charlie Pickering’s dismissal
- Cash Sales: conclusions
- Conclusions: investigations and removal of Lisa, the Recovery Proceedings
- Conclusion: dismissal of Charlie Pickering
- Benefits alleged to be taken from the Company by the Relevant Respondents: Funding of “extravagant personal lifestyles”
- (a) Salaries: John’s salary including Lorraine’s salary; James’ salary; Charles’ salary
- (b) Company credit card expenditure of John and Charles
- (c) Car expenditure
- Horse related expenditure
- Gallops:
- (e) Child support agency payments
- Payments to James for investment in his property business
- The evidence
- Discussion and conclusions
- General conclusion: allegation of financial support to fund extravagant personal lifestyles.
- Allegations relating to the Pre-Pack sale: summary
- The facts: the path to administration