KB-2021-000741 - [2025] EWHC 2096 (KB)

The main evidence for the Defendant was provided by Mr Benson himself. Whilst he was sometimes charming and cooperative, his evidence was frequently aggressive and sarcastic. It provided an insight into the complaints about his conduct with franchisees as described in their evidence. I found him to be belligerent and sometimes overbearing. It is difficult to give a flavour without watching it in live time. Further, the Court cannot do the second best of providing extracts from a transcript because the case has not been transcribed. However, by reference to my notes, there are examples which were striking at the time of his evidence.

On one occasion, Mr Benson replied to Mr Stephens of Counsel in the belief that a question had been asked twice before, saying words to the effect: “for the third time, I have explained it.” On another occasion, he said words to the effect: “I’ve already told you that a few minutes ago.” In submissions on behalf of JBL, it is said that this was simply understandable frustration from being asked the same question more than once. It was a responsible submission to make, but in the context of the evidence as a whole, I do not accept it. The answers in tone and in the number of such answers went far beyond understandable frustration, but were indeed belligerent and aggressive.

Second, having not liked the fact that Mr Stephens was properly putting to Mr Benson that he had been making threats to franchisees, he said words to the effect “the word ‘threat’ which you love, Mr Stephens.” This invective against Mr Stephens only got worse. On one occasion, when a document was put to him by Mr Stephens, he said words to the effect “I do not know what you are reading. It must have been written in invisible ink.” When asked a question about Paul Beck, a trainer, he said: “That is a silly question.” To another question, he said to Counsel “that is a ridiculous thing to say.” He regularly used demeaning words such as “nonsense” and “ridiculous” to characterise the questions asked. When it was put by Mr Stephens that he wrote “aggressively”, Mr Benson replied with the following or words to this effect “It’s that word again…you love it.” It was submitted on behalf of JBL that Mr Benson was “inappropriately pugnacious” and “on occasions too confident” in the correctness of his positions. These characterisations understate the position in order to neutralise the evidence.

In my judgment, it went beyond merely crossing the line of someone who was provoked in repeated questioning. They were confrontational and intended to undermine Counsel. They were disrespectful both to him and to the process. They were telling about Mr Benson’s approach to other people when not getting his own way. The importance of the extracts from the evidence is that if this was the way in which Mr Benson behaved in the formal environment of a courtroom, then it is likely that it bears out overbearing conduct related by franchisees about his conduct at the workplace.

The fact that Mr Stephens was still able to continue his cross-examination unaffected by this persistent sarcasm and abusive behaviour reflects well on his resilience and expertise, but it does not alter or mitigate the conduct of Mr Benson as a witness. It is not that the Court is marking his evidence in some register of manners for witnesses. Still less that the Court is ignoring the “real world” where some people in management might tend to be overbearing or used to getting their own way. It was said that the Court should take into account that such strength of character would have been a factor in building up a successful driving school from which the franchisees will have derived a benefit.

It appeared that Mr Benson will have derived considerable benefit from his determination and industry and strength of personality. I do not accept that the franchisees as a whole will have benefited from such overbearing conduct. The persistent invective and sarcasm of Mr Benson in the witness box helps substantiate the numerous allegations of intimidatory conduct by many of the franchisees who gave evidence. I found Mr Benson a person used to getting his own way. He was a person who brooked no opposition. He did treat himself as if he had control over the franchisees. He was unsympathetic to those whose interests were different from his own. Examples will appear later in the judgment.

It is said on his behalf that he was possessed of a moral code to which he adhered, that he believed in honouring obligations and that “not for nothing, is he a successful franchisor”: see the closing submissions of JBL at para. 21. Having seen Mr Benson in the witness box over 3.5 days and having heard the totality of the evidence, I take the view that this is only half the picture. When the whole picture is examined, the propositions are wrong. He has a moral code in his own favour, and this does not extend to considering adequately the interests of the franchisees as made apparent by the signing up process for the agreements or the extension agreements when franchisees had been in default, described below in this judgment. He believed in honouring obligations to him, but that does not mean that he is a man who is particularly zealous about all kinds of obligations.

He is said to be a successful franchisor. If, without detailed evidence, it is to be assumed that he did well financially as a franchisor, that does not make him a successful franchisor in that there is more to being a successful franchisor than money. There will be considered in this judgment whether he ran a franchise in which franchisees generally thrived, and there will be examined the number of franchisees against whom there were actions, the number who were terminating early and the circumstances in which franchisees entered into longer agreements in order to keep their heads above water. The Court does not have to decide if he was a successful franchisor, but it will not accept that appellation simply on the basis of whether he did well for himself financially.

He reacted to a statement made in respect of the franchisee Ms Newell who said that she was scared of Mr Benson going after her with a gun after he had put his hand into the shape of a gun. He said of her the following or words to like effect, namely it was “the most cynical and nonsensical thing that I have ever heard that she fears me going after her with a gun. She is saying it because it suits her.” Given the fact that Mr Benson had had a conviction for a firearms offence which was sufficiently serious to cross the custody threshold (albeit that an actual sentence was reduced on appeal to a suspended sentence), one might have expected a more conciliatory and understanding approach.

The strength of the denials of Mr Benson to allegations against him did not add to the plausibility of the denials. I found his evidence unsatisfactory in the respects set out above, and I accept many of the allegations about aggressive and intimidatory conduct. There was further support for the overbearing nature of Mr Benson’s conduct in contemporaneous documents including especially Facebook posts and such tapes as remained in respect of recorded conversations.

I found that there was a resonance about the Represented Claimants’ evidence. It gave a common picture about the nature of the relationship between them as franchisees and Mr Benson on behalf of JBL as franchisor. It gave a very distinct picture about the dominant and domineering nature of Mr Benson. It gave a feel about the impact of Mr Benson on them. I found the big picture points credible.

That is not to say that every detail of what was said would be accepted or that they would prove all of the allegations made or the evidence given which was not specifically alleged in the statements of case. JBL is entitled to give a warning about groupthink. There is the danger as in other litigation of parties getting together as a group and putting words into one another’s mouths. I have had that well in mind in the instant action.

I accept the danger that the importance of the case might make witnesses give evidence of matters as they would like them to have been. This case is very important to the Claimants, especially to those who have family members as guarantors. The case is also very important also to JBL and to Mr Benson in that it has put under the microscope the way in which the driving school was operated including serious allegations about the way in which franchisees were treated. It is evident from Mr Benson’s regular use of the courts how central it was to his business to be able to sue franchisees who fell out of line, and how he would rely upon the victories as a source of warning to those other franchisees who may have been thinking in a like way. Likewise, the prospect of losing carried with it a potential price both as regards the instant action and beyond it. This action was of great importance because it accounted for a minority, but still a significant percentage of the franchisees, and collectively the counterclaim adds up to a sum approaching two million pounds.

JBL suggest that there has been snowballing of evidence. It is inevitable that memories would be jogged by hearing about the experience of others. I accept that there are dangers about the creation even unconsciously of confirmatory evidence which may not be reliable recollection. As in most commercial cases, it is important to pay particular attention to contemporaneous documentary evidence and the overall probabilities of the case, and to assess oral evidence in large part by reference to documents and inherent probabilities. Some of the evidence is confirmed by documentation including by way of example the messaging about what happens to defaulting franchisees, the language used in respect of COVID and particular language to franchisees at times of vulnerability.

It was said on behalf of JBL that the Claimants lacked an overall balance which was based on a “tendency to demonise”. I shall refer to the various Claimants in respect of their evidence. I recognise that they were very critical about Mr Benson. I have to decide whether this evidence was therefore unreliable or to be treated with caution or whether the connecting tenor of the evidence provided a big picture of controlling, aggressive and abusive behaviour.

A legitimate criticism of the evidence of the Claimants is of imprecision. That is to say that there were too many instances of conversations which were not dated in the evidence. This led to what JBL has rightly described as the laborious task of piecing together the evidence. The lack of specificity does give rise to the danger of mistaken recollection. However, such was the assiduous nature of the barristers in this case, particularly the two counsel team of Mr Butler KC and Ms Higgo for JBL, that it was possible to tie in many of the allegations to contemporaneous documents. In some respects, this revealed errors of recollection. The Court must treat with caution evidence that was imprecise and this will be borne in mind. It might be rejected where a respondent could not be expected to meet the allegation because of the lack of specificity. Generally, in this case that has not been the case, and JBL has been able to address each of the allegations. I shall refer to the evidence of the Claimants and other witnesses in more detail below.