[2025] EWHC 2684 (KB)

Mr Innes worked for Barclays Bank up to August 2004. He assisted with the initial setting up of Kelling Park and with further funding for the acquisition of Cawston Park in 2003 (both purchases being effectively made by Mr Chancellor). He stated:

“I had a good understanding of how the business worked. I was aware that the higher dependency patients attracted premium pricing. I was also aware that staff numbers were sufficiently high to allow a higher degree of care to be given to those most troubled patients. Cawston Park took in some of the most mentally ill people in the whole country.”

Mr Innes felt that the Claimants were trustworthy and that although he was not working with the company he kept an interest in what was going on. Again he would have relied on what the Claimants told him.

He stated that “I am told the prosecution allege that the fraud was taking place prior to the management buyout in May 2005” and referred to the fact that the fraud would be enhancing the value of the company the Claimants were seeking to buy and also he was aware of high levels of due diligence. Mr Innes does not say who told him about the details of the Prosecution (and what details were given). Mr Innes’ opinion evidence does not materially assist with the issues in this claim (the same points are made in Mr Bull’s statement). Mr Innes stated that he was surprised that he was not contacted by the police to assist in the inquiries and stated “I am told” that the Police decided not to investigate Kelling Park; which to him made no sense at all. Finally he stated that he met Mr Deveney once and “was not overly impressed”; this obviously being a comment of no evidential value in this claim.