David Clarkson
214.The Relevant Respondents relied upon evidence of Mr David Clarkson, He was not called to be cross-examined and his evidence was admitted without challenge. However, that evidence was largely irrelevant to the issues before me and I did not find it assisted me at all in my determinations and assessment.
- 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