PT-2021-000393 - [2025] EWHC 2749 (Ch)

The witness evidence at the trial was central to a number of the issues in dispute. At this hearing it is fair to say that it took significantly less time and was less the focus of closings. At the same time the witnesses’ evidence did alter my view of the case, particularly on the question of penalties, and it is important to address them.

Jack Liondaris is a mortgage broker who has assisted the Claimants in at least some of their efforts to refinance the Loan. He was obviously familiar with the lending market for a portfolio of this nature and spoke knowledgably about both this transaction and the broader issues that tend to concern lenders. He was an honest and helpful witness. Throughout this judgment I will refer to him as Jack Liondaris to avoid any risk of confusion with Andreas Liondaris, the Claimants’ previous mortgage broker who organised the Loan and was a witness at the trial but not at this hearing.

Rose Huseyin is the daughter of Mr and Mrs Houssein and a colleague of Jack Liondaris. Her witness statement went to the various offers and counter-offers that were made in the exchanges between the Claimants and LCL with a view to refinancing the Loan and settling this dispute. She was not, however, the decision-maker in respect of those offers. As she explained, Mrs Houssein made the decisions and Ms Huseyin acted as, to use her term, a “go-between”. She also was an honest, helpful witness, obviously doing her best to assist the court. While she often had to accept that she did not know what drove a decision I did not consider her in the least evasive or difficult, and nor did Mr Wheeler at any time suggest that she was. She gave the evidence that she was able to, and any gaps in that evidence were down to the Claimants’ decisions as to the witnesses they put forward.

Mr Theophanous was the only witness for LCL. He was also the only witness to appear both at the trial and at this hearing. In my First Judgment I commented that he was an impressive witness and an astute businessman who sought to enforce LCL’s rights robustly but fairly, and that remained my impression of him at this hearing. He gave crisp, clear answers; where he was unable to assist he accepted that. I once again found his evidence, particularly his evidence touching on credit risk, to be very helpful.

For completeness, neither expert was recalled. I was therefore limited to their Reports, Joint Statement and cross examination at the trial.