Mr Joel Hogarth
Mr Joel Hogarth
The Debarring Order had far-reaching effects on the evidence. As noted above, only 6 of the Claimant’s witnesses were called, there was of course no cross-examination and only two were subjected to my questioning. Furthermore, none of the Defendants’ witnesses were called to give evidence. I raise this because CVS’s case included criticisms of Mr Joel Hogarth – Mr Bonnier’s external legal counsel.
I am very mindful that Mr Hogarth was not and could not be called to give evidence. Given the serious nature of fraud proceedings, I make it clear that I do not make any findings in relation to Mr Hogarth.
- Heading
- Introduction
- CVS’s witnesses
- Mr Smith
- Mr McQuade
- Mr Sargent
- Mr Foy
- Mr Hendren
- The facts
- Procedural history
- The Debarring Order
- Mr Bonnier’s Article 6 rights
- Mr Joel Hogarth
- Standard of Proof
- CVS’s case
- The Honest Belief in Investment Representation
- The Conditions Precedent Representation
- The Negotiations Representation
- Falsity
- Knowledge
- Intention
- Mr Bonnier’s intention in light of Aaqua’s financing
- The Aaqua App’s lack of functionality
- Reliance
- The Defendants’ case
- The Defendants’ submissions on Intention and the contractual provisions
- Estoppel
- Intention
- Summary of findings on liability
- Quantum
- Mitigation of loss
- Conclusions
![CL-2022-000367 - [2025] EWHC 2877 (Comm)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_WAai98v.png)