BL-2020-CDF-000003 - [2025] EWHC 2226 (Ch)

This was at one time an issue in the case but largely fell away during the course of the evidence. It remains of some relevance and therefore I shall discuss it briefly.

Mr Lloyd’s case has consistently been that he commenced works on the Site before the Agreement for Lease was signed. Although his detailed evidence has not, I think, been entirely consistent as to the date when works commenced, his position in the end was that he had gone onto the Site in late 2009 and commenced work either then or in early 2010. By contrast, the case being advanced on behalf of Mr Hayward was that Mr Lloyd did not have access to the Site until he was given the keys on 12 April 2010, as mentioned by Mr Coates in his fax dated 13 April 2010. However, in cross-examination Mr Hayward said that Mr Lloyd had wanted to begin works before the Agreement for Lease was finalised and had gone onto the Site in 2009 in order to start making preparations for the works that would be undertaken; he was unsure whether works had actually started in 2009. In the circumstances, it is unnecessary for me to analyse the evidence in detail. I accept that Mr Lloyd had access to the Site before the Agreement for Lease was drawn up and signed. It is possible that he had some access to do some preparatory work in late 2009, but despite the evidence of Mr Hayward I tend to think that he did not. The evidence as to the dates of his first visit to the Site and the initial preparation of documentation makes it more likely that he was allowed some access to the Site when, or perhaps shortly before, the Revised Heads of Terms were agreed at the end of February 2010 and that he began some works no later than March 2010.

The only point to which any of this was relevant concerned the question of the genuineness of invoices that Mr Lloyd relies on to support his claim as to the amount of moneys he has expended on the Site. The invoices are in the name LK Installations, which was the trading name of Mr Lee Knuszka; they are headed “Work carried out at SA1 Business Park” and are dated from March 2010 until July 2011. If genuine, they are evidence that Mr Lloyd had commenced work on Site before April 2010. On behalf of Mr Hayward the genuineness of the invoices has been questioned on three main grounds: first, that they pre-date the commencement of works; second, that, if genuine, they would have been produced to Mr Hayward much earlier than they were in fact produced; third, that the business address shown on the invoices is of a property that Mr Knuszka did not own when the invoices were purportedly made. However, I find that the invoices are genuine. Once the point about the date of the works falls away, the contention that they are false documents is much weakened. I do not regard the point about late production of the invoices to be very strong; clearly some works were indeed done, and false documents could as well be produced sooner as later. Mr Knuszka gave evidence at the trial by video link from abroad. He confirmed that he had done work at the Site, but at this remove of time he was unable to specify dates or to give positive confirmation that the invoices were genuine, though he said that they had the appearance of being so. He gave an explanation for the address shown on the invoices, which though not entirely unproblematic is far from incredible and has not been shown to be false. It was not put to him or submitted in argument that he had personally fabricated these invoices at a date later than they bear. The inference that Mr Healey invited me to draw was that, at some date after the relationship with Mr Hayward had broken down, Mr Lloyd had fabricated the invoices to support his claim, and that he had given himself away by dating the first one too early and including an address that Mr Knuszka did not use until later. Neither of those points is persuasive and I decline to draw the conclusion that the documents are false.