The Defendants’ case
The Defendants’ case
As set out above, the Debarring Order prevented the Defendants from advancing a factual case or evidence beyond making submissions on the law and/or the evidence adduced by CVS.
Mr Bonnier provided written opening submissions and closing submissions, which I read and considered. I summarise his main points on the law and in response to CVS’s evidence below. It is worth noting that much of the contents of Mr Bonnier’s written submissions, and much of what he said orally during the trial, was an attempt to give evidence, which I disregarded. This included comments as to the findings made in the course of previous litigation involving Mr Candy, which I did not find relevant to or useful in determining the issues before me.
- 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)