BL-2020-001417 - [2025] EWHC 2487 (Ch)

The witnesses of fact in this case were Mr Reeves for MRL and Ms Galligan and Mr Siddiqi for Musst. In the judgment in Musst v Astra, I treated Ms Galligan and Mr Siddiqi as being “credible and reliable witnesses”. There were certain qualifications, notably their attempt to characterise Matrix as providing an administrative and secretarial service only, which I rejected. I continue to have misgivings about their evidence in that they still understate the extent of the assistance provided by Matrix, and in the case of Mr Siddiqi overstate the extent of his connection with or knowledge of Mr Septon. Subject to those misgivings, I accept the tenor of their evidence.

At para. 52 of the judgment in Musst v Astra, I found that Mr Reeves gave evidence in that trial which was unsatisfactory. At one point, he said that he had agreed a commission with Mr Mathur, but in cross-examination he said that he did not have a positive recollection. He supported the case of Mr Mathur of Octave/Astra about a tripartite November arrangement, which I rejected.  The position is now more stark and even more unsatisfactory. As related above, his evidence has changed with the wind. He has in this case sought to give evidence in support of a contractual case at odds with his evidence in Musst v Astra. He is relied upon to support the case in unjust enrichment. He has given no or no adequate explanation for his changes of position. Whilst allowance has to be made for the difficulty of recollection of events of many years ago, he frequently retreated into answers about not having a good recollection. Whilst that was not surprising in view of how many years ago the events in question were, it appeared to show a lack of engagement with the issues in the case. That lack of engagement was evidenced when Mr Reeves said that he had not read the witness statements of Musst. This is difficult to understand and it does not reflect well on his evidence. I have found his evidence wholly unreliable unless it is supported by reliable corroborative evidence or by the inherent probabilities.

There were experts who gave evidence. They comprised of Mr Nigel Sillitoe and Ms Charlotte Rogers. Their evidence was not especially divergent. It has assisted the Court in considering whether the services in this case are to be paid depending on end-result, and the related question, as to whether they are to be paid on a commission or a fixed fee basis. Their evidence is limited in value in any of the more specific questions that they were asked because, as is recognised by both parties, this case is dependent upon a close inspection of the facts to which this judgment now turns.