" [19.] The process of civil litigation itself subjects the memories of witnesses to powerful biases. The nature of litigation is such that witnesses often have a stake in a particular version of events. This is obvious where the witness is a party or has a tie of loyalty (such as an employment relationship) to a party to the proceedings. Other, more subtle influences include allegiances created by the process of preparing a witness statement and of coming to court to give evidence for one side in the dispute. A desire to assist, or at least not to prejudice, the party who has called the witness or that party's lawyers, as well as a natural desire to give a good impression in a public forum, can be significant motivating forces. [20.] Considerable interference with memory is also introduced in civil litigation by the procedure of preparing for trial. A witness is asked to make a statement, often (as in the present case) when a long time has already elapsed since the relevant events. The statement is usually drafted for the witness by a lawyer who is inevitably conscious of the significance for the issues in the case of what the witness does nor does not say. The statement is made after the witness's memory has been "refreshed" by reading documents. The documents considered often include statements of case and other argumentative material as well as documents which the witness did not see at the time or which came into existence after the events which he or she is being asked to recall. The statement may go through several iterations before it is finalised. Then, usually months later, the witness will be asked to re-read his or her statement and review documents again before giving evidence in court. The effect of this process is to establish in the mind of the witness the matters recorded in his or her own statement and other written material, whether they be true or false, and to cause the witness's memory of events to be based increasingly on this material and later interpretations of it rather than on the original experience of the events."
" I did jot something down, but I didn't keep records of my notes ", "
" From this line of authority I derive the following principles…… (1) In certain circumstances a court may be entitled to draw adverse inferences from the absence or silence of a witness who might be expected to have material evidence to give on an issue in an action. (2) If a court is willing to draw such inferences, they may go to strengthen the evidence adduced on that issue by the other party or to weaken the evidence, if any, adduced by the party who might reasonably have been expected to call the witness. (3) There must, however, have been some evidence, however weak, adduced by the former on the matter in question before the court is entitled to draw the desired inference: in other words, there must be a case to answer on that issue. (4) If the reason for the witness's absence or silence satisfies the court, then no such adverse inference may be drawn. If, on the other hand, there is some credible explanation given, even if it is not wholly satisfactory, the potentially detrimental effect of his/her absence or silence may be reduced or nullified ."
" 64. Lord Nicholls' nuanced explanation left room for the nostrum, "the more serious the allegation, the more cogent the evidence needed to prove it", to take hold and be repeated time and time again in fact-finding hearings in care proceedings………….. …………….. 70. My Lords, for that reason I would go further and announce loud and clear that the standard of proof in finding the facts necessary to establish the threshold under section 31(2) or the welfare considerations in section 1 of the 1989 Act is the simple balance of probabilities, neither more nor less. Neither the seriousness of the allegation nor the seriousness of the consequences should make any difference to the standard of proof to be applied in determining the facts. The inherent probabilities are simply something to be taken into account, where relevant, in deciding where the truth lies…… ……………… 72. As to the seriousness of the allegation, there is no logical or necessary connection between seriousness and probability. Some seriously harmful behaviour, such as murder, is sufficiently rare to be inherently improbable in most circumstances. Even then there are circumstances, such as a body with its throat cut and no weapon to hand, where it is not at all improbable. Other seriously harmful behaviour, such as alcohol or drug abuse, is regrettably all too common and not at all improbable. Nor are serious allegations made in a vacuum. Consider the famous example of the animal seen in Regent's Park. If it is seen outside the zoo on a stretch of greensward regularly used for walking dogs, then of course it is more likely to be a dog than a lion. If it is seen in the zoo next to the lions' enclosure when the door is open, then it may well be more likely to be a lion than a dog. "
" the more serious the allegation the more assiduous must be the exploration of alternative explanations, and the more cogent must be the evidence of a malign rather than a more benign rationale " " given the gravity of what is alleged, and its consequences, and the need for cogent proof " "
" The loans and investments….were typically agreed orally. This reflected the informal nature of the arrangements and the fact that they were made between the Claimant and friends of his, including the First Defendant, and were based on mutual trust and confidence. On some occasions, normally at the request of the relevant investor, the Claimant entered into written agreements." e. The RRFI lists the identities of the Original Investors to the best of C's knowledge and recollection. There are, however, significant inconsistencies between the Original Investors listed in the RRFI and those listed in C's written evidence. For example, the RRFI lists JC4C as having invested£220,000 , but C's written evidence refers to JC4C as having invested£60,000 . In C's written evidence, he lists DK as being an Original Investor (£100,000 ), but there is no reference in the RRFI to DK being an Original Investor. f. When asked to clarify the investments made by D1, C's evidence was inconsistent and ultimately made absolutely no commercial sense - i. in his written evidence, C stated that in 2007 he was an established property developer, and he did not need D1's investment. Nevertheless, D1 insisted on C accepting the£200,000 as D1 wanted to diversify by making money in property, but without actually buying property, ii. however, it is not disputed that D1 had by then already for several years been making money from buying and selling properties. In his oral evidence, C sought to explain away this inconsistency by claiming that D1 no longer wanted the " headache " of dealing with his own properties. It is difficult to understand why D1 would have considered this to be a " headache " when, on C's own evidence, he " free of charge .… on behalf of [D1] drove all the purchases and managed everything from sourcing the properties to renovating them and eventually selling them on. "
" I write further to instructions provided by Mr Ashok Singh in respect to the proposed sale of his property portfolio. Mr Singh has instructed me that you are agreeable to be put forward as a representative of a number of proposed purchases of the aforementioned portfolio. I therefore enclose herewith a Lock Out Contract which identifies you as the "buyer" of a number of properties set out in appendix one of the Contract. I draw your attention to paragraph 3 which sets out your obligations as "buyer"
" Ashok will repay Parminder a total of£650,000 and any other nominal costs that Parminder might have occurred during the process of purchasing the RBS portfolio. This payment will be the full monies that Parminder will receive from the RBS property portfolio. This payment will be the full monies that Parminder will receive from the RBS portfolio. Parminder accepts that he will retain no interest in the RBS property portfolio apart from his£650,000 contribution and or other disbursements that Parminder and Ashok have occurred. "
" Ashok will repay Parminder and Harmale a total of£650,000 and any other nominal costs that Parminder and Harmale might have occurred during the process of purchasing the RBS portfolio. This payment will be the full monies that Parminder and Harmale will receive from the RBS portfolio. This payment will be the full monies that Parminder and Harmale will receive from the RBS property portfolio. Parminder and Harmale accepts that they will retain no interest in the RBS property portfolio apart from their£650,000 contribution and or other disbursements that Parminder, Harmale and Ashok have occurred . "
" Ashok will repay Parminder and Harmale a total of£650,000 and any other nominal costs that Parminder and Harmale might have occurred during the process of purchasing the RBS portfolio. The£650,000 payment will be the full monies that Parminder and Harmale will receive from the RBS property portfolio purchase. Parminder and Harmale accepts that they will retain no other interest in the RBS property portfolio apart from their£650,000 contribution that they have made ."
" It is strenuously denied that Just Call 4 Care is indebted to Mr Goal in the sum alleged. We understand that a payment of£120,000 was made by Mr Gosal to RLK Solicitors Limited on 18 November 201. It is understood that RLK Solicitors were acting on behalf of P S Jhutti and H S Jhutti. The money was we understand loaned to those parties and is due for repayment by them."
" Avtar, it was very good to see you again and thanks for the introduction to Mr Jhutti. Both Mike and myself could see some positives in the proposal, but in order to get to a stage where formal credit approval is sought, I will need the following information; Details of the proposed company structure……….. Assets/Liabilities, Income & Expenditure from each Director…….. Details of Mr Jhutti senior's existing property portfolio in his name. (I've attached an electronic version of a property schedule that can be used)……. Brief details on the background and property experience of the main parties. Copies of latest 6 months personal and business bank statements for each of the main parties. Copies of latest 3 years accounts for any business one of te main parties run. ………….. Accountants confirmation that all of the tax affairs of the main parties are up to date. …………. I look forward to hearing from you and the Jhutti's soon ."
" It was a requirement of [NatWest] (as secured lender on the Properties) communicated to the Claimant on or around10 October 2011 that there had to be a single nominated purchaser of the Properties (although they were in the event content to accept there being two named purchasers). "
" The names and addresses of the intended purchasers… Details of the structure of the proposed purchase, for example will the properties be purchased as a portfolio or in single lots? If the properties are to be purchased in more than one lot, please provide the name of the intended purchaser(s) for each lot. ……………… Confirmation of whether the purchasers will agree to pay a non-refundable deposit to obtain a period of exclusivity to exchange of contracts ."
" I was excited at the prospect "; "
"[34] We well understand how the Recorder's suspicions were aroused. However, in the absence of good reason a Judge ought to be extremely cautious before making conclusive findings of fraud unless the person concerned has at least had the opportunity to give evidence to rebut the allegations. This is a matter of elementary fairness. In Vogon International Ltd v the Serious Fraud Office[2004] EWCA Civ 104 at [29] May LJ (with whom Lord Phillips MR and Jonathan Parker LJ agreed) said, "
" Thank you very much for your time yesterday, and for the extensive pack that you put together for me, which I have read this morning. As I advised this afternoon, I have spoken with my underwriters today, to gauge their thoughts around the proposed deal, and a number of possible issues have been highlighted, and detailed below, however I think having spoken to Mr Jhutti these can be easily overcome. ………….. The headlines for the proposed finance is as follows; Total lend£1.95m – split£1.7 to the bridging company and 250k for refurbishment. "
" Further to our meeting two weeks ago I confirm the following – 1. Bridge£400k agreed and we enclose revised invoice, please see this is paid immediately. 2. We also had agreement in principle for a higher loan to value bridge, but paperwork not signed and returned. 3. We have not had the promised information for Lloyds/TSB. It is disappointing that you have not updated Lloyds, particularly as Lloyds were reluctant to support the Jhuttis again following previous dealings. We had to persuade them and you have let us down. I cannot see Lloyds looking at any future deals for the Jhuttis. Obviously we still expect payment of our invoice ."
" 29/10/12 ASB receiving call from Harmale Jhutti He wished to dis-instruct this firm. No reasons given but he requires copies of his files. 30/10/12 Call from Ashok Singh confirming that this firm was still instructed and that he would ask Harmale to call me to confirm as such. ASB confirming that Jhutti was our client so what this firm had to do was decided by them . 01/11/12 ASB calling Harmale Jhutti. He re-confirms that he wishes to dis-instruct this firm. HE instructs us to issue letters to all buyers solicitors confirming as such ."
"[29 ]…..a common intention constructive trust could arise where (i) there was an express agreement between parties as to the ownership of property (ii) which was relied upon by the claimant (iii) to his or her detriment such that (iv) it would be unconscionable for the defendant to deny the claimant's ownership of the property ."