“From an operational point of view, the items had to go.”
“Given the determination made by the Independent Referee under paragraph 17(1)(c) of Schedule 3 to CEMA 1979, we consider the compensation payment to be in full and final settlement of the matter.”
“We don’t know one way or the other the state of the goods as at December 2016 so cannot tell if the Defendants would have concluded that the goods were perishable – but I accept that it is more likely than not that they would have so concluded – because of the way in which the goods had been treated,” b. The fact that, contemporaneously to the relevant events, it was the Claimant’s own view that the goods were perishable (and, a fortiori, of a perishable nature) – more than that, he communicated that view to the Defendants. Thus, on16th January 2015 , the Claimant wrote to the Defendants asking for the immediate return of the poppy heads, stating that delay “could affect their aesthetics or be detrimental to it, they are very sensitive Dried Papaver Heads”
“If the claimant accepts any amount tendered to him under sub-paragraph (1) above, he shall not be entitled to maintain any action…”
“whilst being engaged in this matter, I have asked many questions and evidence, further information and explanations have not been forthcoming.” 115. In August 2023, the Defendants served an expert report from Mr Tim Sture of Sture Forensic in response. His report did not have the benefit of the Claimant’s bank statements (which were disclosed much later). 116. On21st December 2023 , the Claimant filed and served a Schedule of Loss, totalling approximately£14million which was seemingly based entirely upon the evidence of, and appears to have been drafted by, Mr Butani. Notably, it ignored the evidence of Mr Sears altogether (and it remained the case that, right up until the end of the trial, the Claimant had not prepared a Schedule of Loss based upon the evidence of Mr Sears). 117. On2nd February 2024 , the Defendants filed and served a counter-schedule of loss, based on the expert report of Mr Sture. 118. On6th February 2025 , the experts filed and served a joint statement. They set out a number of different alternatives but agreed on every point within each of those alternatives. The headline figures are that: a. If the Claimant’s tax returns are used as the basis for assessment, then the Claimant’s maximum potential loss would be£3,688,503 . b. If the Claimant’s bank statements are used as the basis for assessment, then the Claimant’s maximum potential loss is£931,991 . 119. Both figures above are heavily caveated, for a range of reasons given in the Joint Statement. 120. It follows that two main issues arise in relation to the quantum of the consequential loss claim. Firstly, whether the court utilise the Claimant’s tax returns or his bank statements as the primary source of evidence for his income and outgoings. Secondly, what (if any) discounts to the headline figures fall to be made to reflect the heavy caveats identified by the accountants. 121. In relation to the first issue, I have no doubt at all that no reliance ought to be placed on the Claimant’s tax returns as a basis for the calculation of losses (and instead his bank statements provide some evidence upon which to base the calculation of such losses): a. First, the accountants agree that the bank statements are likely to be a more reliable basis for assessment than are the tax returns. b. Second, the bank statements are in one sense a source of independent evidence as to the Claimant’s income and expenditure, whereas the tax returns were created without, it seems, recourse to any primary underlying material and at a time when this claim was in contemplation. c. Third, the bank statements are contemporaneous evidence, whereas the tax returns were created years later for a different purpose. 122. The first point in paragraph 121 above speaks for itself; the second and third require explanation. 123. The Claimant explained to me in evidence that in the relevant period he had two bank accounts – the first a TSB account in the name of UKFP; and the second a Lloyds account in the name of the Developing World Air Ambulance (the Claimant gave a very unsatisfactory explanation as to why the account was in this name – essentially he said it was in this name because he was running a charitable project to buy air ambulances, and associated services, for developing countries, yet (i) this does not account for the fact that his poppy head import and export business was run through this account, (ii) there are no payments from the account to buy things that one would ordinarily associate with running a charitable project of this kind – like helicopters (albeit the Claimant claimed, in a moment of panic in the witness box, that he had written toDassault Aviation “…to see how much these things cost…”), and (iii) he ran this charity “as a personal appeal” (he said that the Charity Commission had advised him that there was no need to run the charity as a charity and instead run it as a “personal appeal” – albeit he had never made an appeal to anyone for any money) and was happy to forego the 25% gift aid tax relief that was available to him (“that’s for the accountant to work out, not me”)). Be that as it may, the bank accounts at least show money coming in and money going out of the accounts: these are events which I, and the accountants, can have faith in actually having occurred. 124. The tax returns, by contrast, are quite different: a. The first tax return presented to me by the Claimant was for the tax year6th April 2013 –5th April 2014 , but was dated23rd May 2019 . It shows one source of income, for UKFP, for this period. The Claimant said in evidence that this tax return was completed for him by Mr Butani. The tax return states on its face that “This re-presentation of information follows the letters sent by out accountant Amass BTC11th April 2019 –15th April 2019 .”