[2025] EWHC 2873 (KB)

I found the evidence of Mr Kwak, Mr Duncan and Mr Johnson independent, compelling and credible. Most of their evidence went unchallenged. I accept their evidence within the bounds of its historic setting. I was particularly struck by how motivated Mr Kwak was to the fairness he wished to see in the dealings between the Claimant and the Defendant and how he rejected Mr Adams’ hearsay assertions. Mr Potter was cross examined at length, professionally and properly. I found his evidence clear, consistent, logical and untainted by malice or overbearing self-interest. I consider him to have been a witness doing his best honestly to set out the facts.

Partly for the reasons set out above, but mainly for the defects in his evidence, I reject much of the evidence of Mr Adams. He was manipulative in the way he saw events. There was vague hearsay which he put forwards as hard fact. There were holes in disclosure which he made no effort to apologise for. His approach to the alleged breaches of duty by the Defendant was supposition entwined with a tinge of bullying. He ignored the humiliating effects of his last chance Addendum on the Defendant despite being told of them. He imposed “counselling” from Father Bob without privacy for the content. He banned the Defendant from drinking and required him to attend AA without a doctor’s diagnosis. He dismissed the Defendant’s concerns about product quality and he caused or permitted Ms Colby and the UK company to come down very hard on the Defendant immediately after he resigned. Overall, I was not impressed by the evidence of Mr Adams or Ms Colby. I was impressed by the evidence of Mr Hitt, but do not accept the relevance of his calculations. When their evidence conflicts with the evidence of Mr Potter, Mr Duncan, Mr Kwak and Mr Johnson, I prefer the evidence of the defence witnesses.