Case No. CR-2019-LDS-000669

466.In the pre-cursor schedule to Schedule 3 produced during the trial, one of the headings of claim was £100,000 being the subject of cheques payable to Oxley & Coward solicitors from 5 October 2016 to 5 January 2017. This claim also appears in the Points of Reply but as part of an answer to an allegation that Lisa was properly removed as a director given the allegations and investigations into the financial management of the companies for which she had sole responsibility. They were not raised as a separate matter of unfair prejudice. As I have already said, in my judgment it would be unfair to allow this allegation to be raised so late. The fact that the factual allegation may have been raised is not sufficient, it is of key importance for a respondent to know what allegations of unfair prejudice are being made and his/her decision as to the amount of time and effort to be put into contesting allegations can well be affected by the relevance of the factual issue raised.467.In any event, this matter is not contained within Schedule 3 and, as I understand matters, it is not therefore now pursued.468.For completeness, however, I will deal with the point briefly.469.The allegation is that the payments, made to solicitors (Oxley & Coward), were in fact made for the benefit of James’ property investment business. The only evidence of this is double hearsay: Lisa says that Charlie Pickering was told this by Chris Earl who worked at LWC.470.However, the explanation given and repeated in witness statements was that the four payments in question represented payment of part of the outstanding purchase price of the Redirack site, adjoining the Kilnhurst Site. The purchase price was £1.15 million together with a deferred consideration of £200,000 agreed to be paid over two years. The four cheques, say the Relevant Respondents, were to pay the then outstanding £100,000. There is no evidence that the £100,000 was otherwise paid to the former owners of the Redirack site. The likelihood is that the respondents’ account is correct. Certainly, I would not be prepared to rely upon the hearsay evidence to the contrary. James (whose companies were said to have received the sums) was not cross-examined about them. John was criticised for not producing relevant documents but the documents would be company documents. Oxley & Coward were asked about the matter by Lisa’s solicitors but did not respond.471.If I am wrong in refusing permission to amend for the reasons that I have given, I would in any event hold that I am not satisfied that the payments were made for James’ personal benefit as alleged and therefore I am not satisfied that there is any unfair prejudice with regard to the cheques in question.