[2024] EWHC 3625 (TCC)

I should begin by making observations about the impression which I formed of the witnesses’ evidence.

My knowledge of the witnesses is gleaned from their presentation in the witness box, the manner in which they responded to questions on cross-examination and the witness statements which they signed and to which they put their names.

I took evidence from Mr Lomax, Mrs Davies and Mr Rose (on behalf of the Claimants) and from Ms Dimelow and Mr Gregson (on behalf of the Defendants).

Overall, I found Mr Lomax to be a reasonable witness. I do not doubt that he believes the evidence which he gave to me in the witness box to be true.

However, I do have reservations about his evidence.

He told me at one point that, in one particular respect, his second witness statement was “possibly a little more accurate” than his first statement. That was not an isolated example of inconsistencies in his documented case.

I found that, when he answered questions from Mr Aslett, he would often couch his replies as assumptions, rather than statements of fact. I also noted that, when challenged about what he had done, or not done, in the past, he had a tendency to fall back on his dislike of, or unfamiliarity with, administrative tasks, or, at times, on his dyslexia, when neither of those factors should have impacted on his memory of events or on his ability to provide explanations for the case which he was advancing.

I was not persuaded by some aspects of his evidence. One example was his account of the Severn Trent Pipeline issue. He told me that he was unclear about the searches which had been undertaken and suggested that there had been confusion with another pipeline, which appeared to have been of a different nature altogether. Ms Dimelow addressed this issue with far more clarity and detail.

I also found that Mr Lomax had a tendency to take steps without ensuring that the Defendants were fully informed of his plans. Ms Dimelow told me (and I accept her evidence on these points) that he had not consulted her before making the Judicial Review application and before applying for Planning Permission to build additional properties on Plot E.

I was struck by the inconsistency of Mr Lomax’s approach in his dealings with the Defendants. For example, he would often leave negotiations and interactions with them to Mrs Davies and, at some crucial points, he entrusted matters to Mr Rose and Mr Gregson. On other occasions he would engage directly with the Defendants. This has perhaps made it more difficult for him to persuade me of his case on whether the Purchase Price was agreed. If there had only been one point of contact, his position on this issue might have been more persuasive.

Mr Lomax sought to present himself as an ideas person, rather than an administrator or a businessman with a firm grasp on legal and administrative technicalities. I was not altogether persuaded that this was an accurate characterisation of him. He is clearly a very capable and intelligent man who has made a success of his business. He will have gained experience of legal, procedural and planning issues through his work as a commercial developer. He has been the driving force behind the development of the Farm and other projects.

I found Mrs Davies to be an impressive and persuasive witness. She was a good historian. She answered the questions which were put to her without hesitation or prevarication. She made appropriate concessions, notably when she told me openly about the minutes of the meetings which she had taken.

I appreciate that she was being asked to remember events which happened some time ago in a business in which she has not been involved for many years, but I am confident that she came to Court with the intention of telling me the truth, as she recalls it.

I accept her evidence that she did not draft, or advise Ms Dimelow on, the content of the email which she sent to the Local Authority concerning the date on which she and her mother moved to the New Farmhouse. Mrs Davies struck me to be a person of integrity who takes her duties and responsibilities very seriously. She had no reason to encourage Ms Dimelow to be untruthful in preparing the email. She had nothing to gain from it and, given her career aspirations, much to lose.

However, although it does not reflect on Mrs Davies’ credibility, I had considerable concern about the absence of the minutes of the meetings which she took. I return to this point below.

I found Mr Rose to be a good witness. I have no doubt that he was doing his best to give me an accurate picture of events. He was very open and was prepared to tell me when his memory was inconsistent with Mr Lomax’s position.

My overarching impression of Ms Dimelow was that she was a truthful and honest witness. She made concessions on certain points. She seemed to have a good memory of past events, despite the passage of time.

However, perhaps inevitably, I was concerned about the email which she sent to the Local Authority. She accepted that the content of the email was untruthful. I found it troubling that she would send such an email, purely with a view to minimising her liability to Council Tax.

As I have already indicated, I do not accept Ms Dimelow’s allegation that Mrs Davies assisted her in drafting that email. However, it does not follow that I think that she was seeking to mislead me on that point. It may well be that she genuinely believes that Mrs Davies steered her to draft the email in a particular way. Even so, I have no hesitation in finding that she is mistaken on that point.

Mr Gregson was an impassioned witness and I am sure that he came to Court with a view to telling me the truth.

However, in answer to a question from me, he accepted that his business relationship with Mr Lomax had broken down and it was clear to me that it had done so in acrimonious circumstances. On that basis, I cannot, and do not, regard Mr Gregson to be a wholly independent witness without an axe to grind.

However, I fully accept that he personally did not reach any agreement with the Defendants on the Purchase Price of Plot C. He was very clear and detailed in his evidence on that point.