Case No. CR-2019-LDS-000669

444.In the current Petition, a claim about expenditure on personal hobbies (mainly, if not entirely, equestrian related) is set out in paragraph 27 and Schedule 2. In Schedule 2 a number of items are said to be of unknown value/monetary amount. I treat the relevant part of Schedule 3 as now setting out the petitioner’s case on this head of claim of unfair prejudice.445.The claims are as follows:446.It is apparent that these figures are taken from a table in Mr Lacey’s report at paragraph 7.12 where he summarises the total costs of the services provided to horses said to be owned by James, Charles and LWC. On the face of it therefore, to the extent that sums were paid in respect of LWC, such expenditure was proper company expenditure (rather than personal expenditure). There may or may not be a separate issue as to whether it was proper of the Company (LWC) to be running an equine venture. However, LWC had done this without complaint and in any event this aspect was not explored in evidence.447.Schedule 17 of Mr Lacey’s Report sets out the individual items which LWC paid for in terms of equestrian costs for the period from the year ended 31 October 2013 to the year ended 7 October 2020. The breakdown of the items on which money was spent for the years that I have detailed above are as follows:448.Mr Lacey’s schedule at his Appendix 17 also shows that considerable sums were spent by LWC on equine-related matters in the years before:449.In the Draft LWC Report, the question of expenses of Martin Cooper were considered. Paragraph 2.3 of the draft report under the heading “horses” states as follows:“ 2.3 HorsesA schedule of the expenses relating to horses and stabling paid out to M. Cooper, appears as schedule 7. We have been advised that Charles Hughes owns 6 horses, James Hughes owns 4 and there are 3 racehorses owned by the company (London Wiper Company Ltd Trading as Universal Recycling Company).A total of 13 horses are therefore looked after and stabled by M. Cooper. The costs relating to these animals have been apportioned appropriately. The costs relating to James Hughes's 4 horses total £16,627.69 during the period evaluated, this amount subsequently appears as part of John Hughes's overall drawings/expenditure in schedule 2.”450.Schedule 7 shows the following sums as paid to M Cooper for the years 2013 to 2015. The equivalent sums attributed to M Cooper by Mr Lacey (which match) are also shown below.451.Accordingly, what the LWC Draft Report confirms (among other things) is that an attribution process was gone through under which (for example) M Cooper’s costs were attributed between the Company (LWC) and John, James and Charles dependent on the number of horses that each held at the time. This is not challenged or specifically dealt with by Mr Lacey in his report. Further, there is no evidence that that position altered after 2015.452.In any event, James confirmed that Martin Cooper did not just work on James’ horses. He also looked after the driving ponies at Edlington Farm, maintained the menage owned by LWC, worked on the grounds of Edlington Wood and oversaw the livery business at Holywell Farm (originally bought by Portbond in 2011, Portbond then spending sums on indoor and outdoor stables and earning an income from letting it out).453.My conclusions are as follows. First, the petitioner cannot complain about possible mismanagement in Portbond/LWC maintaining horses, getting involved in horseracing and equine related matters. That commenced long before 2015 and was agreed to or acquiesced in by Nora. Furthermore, the Companies’ business had a product that was relevant to the horse racing world. In the proof of evidence of Mr Fitton in relation to an appeal against the service in May 2014 of an enforcement notice in respect of the Kilnhurst Site, Mr Fitton dealt with the Companies’ Products. Having dealt with cable processing, copper granules, aluminium recycling, WEE Recycling, and secure data processing, he stated the following:“ 7.6 Equestrian Surfaces, Arenas &