Case No. CR-2019-LDS-000669

All the Equestrian products were born out of the passion for horses and riding, of one of the Senior Leadership Team and the Company's commitment to reducing the amount of waste sent to waste treatments sites, namely landfills. By using their strong connections in the industry, they discovered that previously discarded waste from the jelly cable plant could actually be used as artificial ground for horses at arenas. Mixed with wax it becomes a product which is outstanding for such purposes and superior to anything else on the market.Through the recycling of both jelly filled and dry scrap cables, the equestrian department provide plastic granules for the equestrian surface industry. These surfaces are designed to help prevent freezing in cold weather and are suitable to mix with sand for application in both indoor and outdoor arenas and gallops. These granules are of the PVC variety and are known as PVC granules, although the Company also supply the petroleum jelly polythene type, which are known by a patented name of Vasa Track.Vasa Track is a petroleum jelly covered polythene riding surface produced from jelly filled cables through a water separation granulation plant. These are used to create a springy and stable surface when mixed with sand. It creates excellent stability due to the petroleum jelly in the polythene and is used in many arenas, gallops and all weather race tracks throughout the UK, Europe and the rest of the world.”454.Secondly, so far as concerns any element of personal benefit to any of the Relevant Respondents flowing from the employment of Martin Cooper who also looked after their personal horses, the position is as follows. At the end of 2015 the contemporaneous evidence is that there had been a proper apportionment/allocation exercise of such expenses as between the Companies and the individual Relevant Respondents. There is no evidence that that practice did not continue. I am unable to decide that it did not.455.However, even if it did not continue and some form of claim remains against the Relevant Respondents, that is a claim of the relevant Company. It is a monetary claim. I would not by itself have regarded that situation, even if being unfairly prejudicial, as justifying a buy-out order but rather consider that the correct remedy would be for the relevant sum to be repaid to the Company. If that is correct, then even if there is a claim, it is one that the administrators can bring and it seems unlikely, given the overall deficiency in LWC that the petitioner has sufficient interest in the matter to justify relief being granted on the Petition.456.As regards the payment to or in respect of Doncaster racecourse, John’s position was that LWC had long rented a box at Doncaster Racecourse (which it shared with another company) and used it for corporate hospitality. Lisa confirmed that this was the position. In the circumstances I do not consider that any case of unfair prejudice is made out in relation to this item.457.As regards the payment to Dan Skelton Racing Limited, this expenditure is said by John to have been to the trainer of the Companies’ racecourses for which the Company paid. I am not satisfied that he is incorrect on this point and I am not satisfied that there was anything unfairly prejudicial about such payments.458.As regards the payments to the vets, the sums are de minimis. Further, I am not satisfied that the expenditure related to anything other than LWC’s own horses (which is John’s evidence). Accordingly the complaint is not made out.459.As regards the payments to James Hughes and Neil Cartwright, in my judgment an application to amend is needed to bring these claims in which claims are not contained within Schedule 2 to the Petition. I would not allow such amendment given the late time at which it is raised and the de minimis nature of the sums involved. In any event, on the evidence that I was referred to and heard I am not satisfied that any unfair prejudice is made out in relation to such payments. 460.To the extent that I am wrong in relation to any of the payments of the vets bills, and to James Hughes, Neil Cartwright and Dan Skelton, the same point arises about these being monetary claims which the administrators can bring and that I would not have ordered a share buy-out based on those facts (whether taken alone or with the other equine related expenditure points).