XX XXXXXXX XXXXX. Okay. XX XXXXX: My Lord, I have come prepared, obviously, to open the application in the usual way, and I anticipate that I might be speaking for a little over an hour. But if your Lordship has had the opportunity to read some of the documentation, in particular my fifth witness statement, Xx Xxxxx'x witness statement in reply and my witness statement of last Friday in reply to that, it may be that your Lordship would wish to be rather more interventionist and get through this rather more quickly than the conventional way would do. XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: Well, I think it is going to take some time, Xx Xxxxx, however one goes about it. My experience of being interventionist is that it's often a short route to a longer way around. XX XXXXX: Counterproductive, my Lord, yes, I see. XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: One immediate question which seems to affect, I think, three of your suggestions is the position of the SFO and whether there is really any utility in this court spending time which is necessarily taken out of the trial considering issues which may turn out to be completely academic. XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: Sorry, what's the point of considering those options which are contingent on the Crown Court coming down in favour of Xx Xxxxxxx'x application? Because it is going to take time to deal with this. XX XXXXX: Yes, my Lord. I see the point. My point is that the Serious Fraud Office is just plain wrong, my Lord. The points they take are points which are unarguable. Now, I'm not inviting your Lordship to reach that conclusion -- I can't; your Lordship has no jurisdiction to reach that conclusion. But if what I have called option one, namely, the Xxxxxxx loan, is still in play, the Serious Fraud Office doesn't have a monopoly in terms of deciding when cases are heard. They say this case should be heard four or five weeks from now. XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: Well, that's a different question. The timing, I accept -- they have said that. It doesn't mean that it will be. It may be that it can be dealt with by the Crown Court more rapidly. XX XXXXX: Yes, my Lord, I was thinking perhaps the end of this week. XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: That may be. I can't, of course, say anything about that, other than to, no doubt, express, as any other judge could, the hope that that might be possible. But I've got no influence over the lists in the Crown Court. XX XXXXX: No, my Lord, neither do I. I can simply ask. XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: If that is right, is there really any utility in me considering those options and ta...
XX XXXXXXX XXXXX. Yes. XX XXXXXX: It provides, in paragraph 1: "A party shall be deemed to admit the authenticity of a document disclosed to him under Part 31 unless he serves notice that he wishes the document to be proved at trial." XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: What about the other way around, though? Have they also been disclosed by -- I mean, the most important ones, for present purposes, seem to be the MoU and the SPA. XX XXXXXX: Yes. XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: Have those been disclosed also by defendants? XX XXXXXX: Yes. We can provide the -- XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: I don't think I need the references. XX XXXXXX: -- table. XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: I should be able to -- you can just tell me. XX XXXXXX: They have been disclosed by Xx Xxxxxxx, Mr and Xxx Xxxx-Xxxxxxx, Xx Xxxxxx and Xx Xxxxxxxx. But my Lord has my point on that. XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: Yes, I have your point. XX XXXXXX: The second point is that it is necessary to be very careful in the application of CPR XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: Can we see the front of this document? XX XXXXXX: Can we see page 1, please. XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: Yes. XX XXXXXX: And then page 19 please. Lord Justice Xxxxxxx was dealing with the position relating to a diary entry and he said in paragraph 100 that the ground of appeal is that the judge ought to have held that the diary note was correctly dated and accurate, because the claimant had failed to serve a notice under CPR 32.19. Then, in 101, he says he has set out the relevant facts: "The claimant's case in respect of this document was two fold:
XX XXXXXXX XXXXX. It also says there is a loss for the year there of £1.2 million. XX XXXXXX: Yes, there are continued -- XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: At the bottom. XX XXXXXX: That's right. It doesn't make money, it continues to make losses, and loans are advanced to prop it up and its position keeps getting worse. Consistent with that is the Mazars valuation of AML that we see at <MDR00213396>. My Lord will see that it's headed "Asset Mapping Limited. XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: "Last 12 months".
XX XXXXXXX XXXXX. What's the position with regard to the obligations to pay off the loan by LUKI? Where is that, as it were, located? XX XXXXXX: That is still located with Lakeview Country Club Limited, which bears that obligation and owns the development land. XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: There seemed to be some -- you just took me through these documents quite quickly, but there seemed to be something in the intermediate stage which talked about the assumption of the -- what was that? The assumption obligation by LV -- XX XXXXXX: To the Telos investors. XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: Is that what that was referring to? I didn't pick it up fully. In one of those emails - XX XXXXXX: I think it was <MDR00025338>. Let's see if it was that one or page 2. Was it this one or another one? XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: No, it was -- it might have been -- XX XXXXXX: We looked at -- XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: -- 12 August.
XX XXXXXXX XXXXX. Yes. Oh, I see, that's for the assumption of the liability for the Telos investors. XX XXXXXX: And that seems to be referring to something that is said to have happened, again, on 27 July, when this so-called restructuring was implemented, although, as we have seen, the TR1 wasn't signed until later. XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: Okay. XX XXXXXX: Then Support company debentures. I had shown your Lordship that L&TD's liability to LCF was reallocated to the various Support companies and we saw the facility agreements between LCF and the Support companies. I mentioned that there were debentures by the various Support companies in favour of LCF and we looked at the debenture granted by Atlantic Petroleum Support Limited.
XX XXXXXXX XXXXX. Did it own the shares or did the individuals own the shares? XX XXXXXX: They were never issued. There were never any such shares. XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: Right. XX XXXXXX: But I will come to that in a moment. XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: Sorry, let me just remind myself. Okay, the simple point, you say, is that there were no shares. XX XXXXXX: So that's the first thing, the guarantee. The second thing is that London Group LLP executed a debenture in favour of LCF. That's <MDR00007514>. My Lord can see it is dated 29 April 2017. London Group LLP is the chargor. At page 25, we see what it charged. First:
XX XXXXXXX XXXXX. It is the same principle as we saw earlier on, and you say that carries on for all facility agreements. XX XXXXXX: Yes.
XX XXXXXXX XXXXX. Why don't you come back to that after the break in five minutes, thank you. (11.42 am)
XX XXXXXXX XXXXX. I take your point that there is no -- you make the very simple point that there is no mention of Xx Xxxxxxxx, but the question then will be whether what is pleaded is sufficient to bring this in. Are you content to continue on that basis? XX XXXXXXX: Absolutely, my Lord. XX XXXXXXX XXXXX: So, I will take it as a standing point that you are not to be taken to have waived any objections you have to the pleadings by not intervening at this stage. XX XXXXXXX: Yes, I'm grateful for that clarification, my Lord. Indeed, there are several other areas which are similar to this, not least the Sanctuary and SAFE loan area, but I will deal with all of that in my opening. I'm grateful for the clarification. Thank you.
XX XXXXXXX XXXXX. Do you want to complete your answer?
