D.5 Appointment of Sir Peter Lauener
D.5 Appointment of Sir Peter Lauener
In October 2014, Sir Peter, who was already Chief Executive of the Education Funding Agency, was appointed as Chief Executive of the SFA.
Shortly after the 2015 General Election, Mr Marples emailed Nick Boles (the Minister of State for Skills) asking for a meeting to discuss SFA funding policy. Mr Boles’ office forwarded the email to Sir Peter, who commented on the Company as follows:
“It is an organisation that has done very well recently and expanded rapidly and does seem to have a strong employer driven focus and has scored well with Ofsted. I have said that I will visit one of their centres later this year.
Subject to looking at their data more, this might be the kind of organisation we would seek to expand in future because they do pull new employers in. One of the things I want the App Delivery Board to do is to take a targeted look at how we manage growth to focus on the game changers.”
On 24 July 2015, Sir Peter visited the Company at the invitation of Mr Marples and Ms McEvoy-Robinson and recorded in an email at the time that he was “very impressed”.
- Heading
- Introduction
- B. The witnesses
- Expert evidence of Vivian Cohen
- C.2 The relevant principles
- C.3 The facts of this case
- C.4 Decision
- D.1 The SFA
- D.2 Carter & Carter
- D.3 The Company and the Funding Agreement
- D.4 2015: The proposed Inflexion acquisiton, Information Memorandum and Baker Tilly report
- D.5 Appointment of Sir Peter Lauener
- D.6 Nick Linford and FE Week
- D.7 2016: The Apprenticeship Levy and proposed Non-Levy Cap
- D.8 Autumn/Winter 2016: The Trilantic Acquisition
- D.9 December 2016: The ‘blood pressure’ email
- D.10 The 13 December 2016 meeting
- D.11 December 2016 – January 2017: The Decision Letter and aftermath
- D.12 Further attempts to sell the business
- D.13 2017-2018: Emergence of irregularities in 3AAA’s records
- E. Misfeasance in public office
- E.2 The pleaded claim
- E.3 Targeted malice - a specific intent to injure
- E.4 Discussion – targeted malice
- E.5 Discussion - untargeted malice
- F. The claim in negligence
- F.1 A duty of care
- F.2 Pure economic loss
- F.3 Assumption of responsibility
- F.4 Communications crossing the line
- F.5 The task
- F.6 A White v Jones lacuna
- F.7 Conclusion on duty of care
- G. Loss
- H.1 “Net Cash Consideration”
- H.2 Value of Claimants’ shares in December 2016
- H.3 The significance of data manipulation
- Conclusions
![BL-2022-002117 - [2025] EWHC 2794 (Ch)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_O3rEzCI.png)