‘Readers of this blog will recall an important DPA judgment, particularly on the legal professional privilege exemption, which came out in January 2017 called Holyoake v Candy & CPC [2017] EWHC 52 (QB) (see the blogpost here). That case has, however, involved various pieces of satellite litigation including a 193 page judgment of Nugee J handed down just before Christmas in Holyoake & Hotblack v Candy & Candy & others [2017] EWHC 3397 (Ch).For some reason the parties to the extensive Chancery proceedings appear to have seen as most important the multi-million pound claims for misrepresentation, duress, unlawful means conspiracy, interference with economic interests, undue influence, breach of consumer credit legislation, breach of the rule against penalty clauses and the exotically named extortion under colour of due process. For very detailed and lengthy reasons which it is unnecessary to set out here, Nugee J rejected all of Mr Holyoake’s various claims. The judge made numerous adverse findings in respect Mr Holyoake’s performance as a witness, although it is fair to say that the Candy brothers did not escape without some measure of criticism either. (I should declare that I acted for Candy and CPC in the earlier DPA proceedings; although all of the Panopticon editors were on one side or the other.)’
Panopticon, 29th December 2017
Source: panopticonblog.com
