The businessman claiming £132million from the Candy brothers was described as a ‘pathological liar’ at the High Court.
Billionaire property tycoon Christian Candy, 42, and his older brother Nick, 44, are accused of acting like ‘Bond villains’ after lending entrepreneur Mark Holyoake £12million to finance a property deal.
Mr Holyoake borrowed £12million from Christian Candy’s company CPC Group in 2011 to finance a property development scheme, but eventually had to pull out of the property redevelopment at a loss of £100million in potential profits.
The Old Harrovian ended up paying back more than £37million on the two-year loan after signing a series of finance deals.
Mr Holyoake says Christian repeatedly threatened to destroy his life and ruin his business during an alleged campaign of blackmail and intimidation which he claims left him fearing for his own life.
The married father of three claims the property mogul even made threats against his pregnant wife Emma, who had previously suffered a miscarriage.
Tim Dean, finance director of Christian Candy’s CPC Group, told the court that Christian calling Mr Holyoake a ‘pathological liar’ was simply ‘a matter of fact.’
He added that there was ‘no reason for [CPC] to interfere with the valuation’ of Grosvenor Garden House.
Roger Stewart QC, representing Mr Holyoake, suggested CPC had been attempting to ‘either extract money…or alternatively obtain Grosvenor Garden House.’
But Mr Dean denied that was the case, saying that the only way CPC could have acquired the property was if Mr Holyoake ‘was prepared to let that happen.’
He added that Mr Holyoake had said later that he ‘thought it was inappropriate for the property to come to CPC’ and that there was ‘no mechanism’ in the deal by which they could have acquired it.
Mr Stewart said Christian and Mr Holyoake were involved in shouting over the phone at around the time of the second escrow agreement in June 2012.
Mr Dean replied: “Mr Holyoake at times was very frustrating because he would not accept the position as it stood.”
When Mr Stewart suggested that the conversation were ‘vitriolic,’ Mr Dean replied that the vitriol had ‘come from Mark’ and that ‘Christian is very clear cut because he is frustrated.’
Mr Dean said the only time he could remember Christian using bad language towards Mr Holyoake was ‘after the loan had been repaid.’
Mr Stewart replied: “That is simply untrue, isn’t it? You were present on a large number of occasions when Christian was calling him a pathological liar, a scumbag and all sorts of things such as that?”
Mr Dean replied: “I think the term pathological liar may have been used on calls, but I would struggle to place it. It was simply said as a matter of fact.
“I know it doesn’t sound very nice, but it has also been proven to be true.”
Mr Stewart drew attention to an email on 27 July 2012 in Mr Dean’s witness statement, in which he told Chris that ‘the threats of litigation are not something that we want aired in court.
Asked why he did not want those threats aired in court Mr Dean replied: “Quite simply because the call was all about the fact that Mark stated we had interfered in the valuation and that was simply not the case, so it was very clear cut that Mark was prepared to make statements that could be distorted.
“It never happened that we interfered in the valuation. My point was that Mark was prepared to twist facts.”
He added that he believed the ‘allegations about interference was something Mr Holyoake was putting in place to himself a litigation position as we moved forward.’
Mr Dean added: “The fact that we are making threats [of] litigation, that is entirely legitimate.”
Mr Stewart suggested that the email on its own made ‘no sense’ and must ‘refer to something else you were worried about.’
Mr Dean said he was only worried that Mr Holyoake would ‘twist facts,’ adding: ‘You can see in this litigation that that is the case.’
The Candy brothers deny all of Mr Holyoake’s allegations and claim he has invented the threats in a deliberate attempt to extract money from them.
Mr Holyoake is seeking £132million for lost profits, over-payments, legal costs and aggravated damages.
The hearing continues.