CH-2025-000012 and CH-2025-000014 - [2025] EWHC 2697 (Ch)

Fecha: 20-Oct-2025

£121,000 Loan Issue

£121,000 Loan Issue

38.

At paragraph 30 of the Judgment, the Judge found that Mr and Mrs Gold had made a loan of £121,000 to DFH in September 2005: “for the purpose of enabling the purchase of Norfolk Road”.

39.

In evidence under cross-examination, Mr Daniel did not, in terms deny that the £121,000 had been advanced by Mr and Mrs Gold, but said that there was no evidence of it in his records, and that whilst he had asked Mrs Rigg, there was nothing in the completion statements relating to either “Norfolk” or “Fairfield”, or in the relevant accounts showing the receipt of the £121,000 (Transcript, page 207:19-34 of the Appeal Bundle) .

40.

Mr Thakerar submits that there were “numerous factors” that strongly pointed against the relevant loan having been made, that the Judge made no reference to in the Judgment, including:

The £121,000 had only been added to the counterclaim on 22 November 2024, the working day before trial, which is said to have prejudiced the ability of DFH and Mr Daniel to respond to the point.

ii)

DFH and Mr Daniel had accepted all the other sums alleged had been paid by Mr and Mrs Gold, on the basis that there was evidence to support the same, which it is said there was not in the case of this particular sum.

iii)

It was said that the completion statements for the properties held by DFH/Mr Daniel in Norfolk Road and Fairfield Road did not reference any loan from Mr Mrs Gold.

iv)

Mr and Mrs Gold had been poor in their accounting, having previously claimed sums, including a sum of £137,200 that they had been unable to substantiate, and failed to bring into account sums that they had received, including a sum of £145,000. Further, it is said that Mr Gold accepted under cross examination that he did not disclose financial records that he did not consider relevant to the Proceedings, including certain bank statements, that it is said might have been important.

Mr Gold had been found by the Judge to have been a dishonest witness, in particular in relation to a payment of £150,000 alleged to have been made to Robert Clarke (“Mr Clarke”), one of the witnesses who gave evidence for DFH and Mr Daniel.

41.

Mr Thakerar thus submitted that the evidence: “points overwhelmingly against the conclusion on the balance of probabilities that [Mr and Mrs Gold] made this Loan of £121,000”.

42.

Mr Thakerar submitted that the Judge’s error in proceeding on the basis that it was Mr and Mrs Gold’s case that the £121,000 was a contribution towards acquiring an interest in the Property materially influenced her into erroneously finding that this sum had been lent by Mr and Mrs Gold. However, I regard it as significant that the Judge did not simply find that if it was not such a contribution then it must be a loan. Rather, she went on to consider in some detail the factual basis for it being a loan.

43.

The primary evidence before the Judge in support of the contention that £121,000 had been advanced by way of loan to DFH was a CHAPS Transfer Request Form whereby Mr Gold had requested the transfer of £121,000 from his Nationwide account to Lennon & Co’s client premium account, with the following added regarding payment details, namely “fairfield and norfolk”. Further, a bank statement in respect of the relevant Nationwide account has been produced showing the CHAPS payment in the amount of £121,000 having been paid on 8 September 2005.

44.

A further consideration is that there is evidence of £96,000 having been paid back to Mr and/or Mrs Gold on 7 December 2005 following the sale of Norfolk Road.

45.

I am satisfied that the Judge was entitled to conclude, on the evidence before her, that the £121,000 was advanced by way of loan, and that it would be wrong for me to interfere with her finding of fact on the basis that I cannot be satisfied that she was plainly wrong, or came to a conclusion that no reasonable judge could have come to on the evidence.

46.

Whilst the Judge may not specifically have dealt with all the points identified by Mr Thakerar, it cannot be assumed that she did not have them in mind. Indeed, in paragraph 29 of the Judgment, the Judge specifically refers to Mr Daniel’s evidence with regard to searching his records and being unable to find evidence that either he or DFH received the sum in question, and that it was his evidence that the £121,000 was not reflected in the completion statements for Norfolk Road. She clearly, therefore, factored these particular considerations into her decision, and I note that although reference was made in Mr Daniel’s evidence to Mrs Rigg having looked at the relevant completion statement, it was not actually produced as it might have been.

47.

The fact that the payment should have been directed to Lennon & Co’s client account, the fact that the payment instruction made specific reference to properties that DFH/Mr Daniel, were developing, and that £96,000 was subsequently repaid specifically relating to Norfolk Road, provides, in my judgment, a sound evidential basis for the Judge’s conclusion that the £121,000 was advanced by way of loan notwithstanding the specific points identified by Mr Thakerar.

48.

I therefore conclude that the Judge was properly entitled to the conclude on the evidence as she did in relation to the £121,000 Loan Issue, and therefore that Ground 3 of the appeal should be dismissed.