This case involved substantial factual disagreement and again shows the judicial evaluation of the credibility of witness. Mann J. said,

“25. [The Claimant] gave evidence of various aspects of the history of the matter. He is obviously an experienced and clever businessman. He would apply that description to himself, and TC would agree. As a witness his answers to questions were often long-winded and intended to make sure that his case was got over, both in terms of actual evidence and in terms of argument. On critical points that were in issue in this case, and on which he could give actual evidence, his assertions of his case were often not particularly convincing. The quality of his evidence was often that of litigation wishful thinking – at best he has convinced himself that things happened (or did not happen) because that is necessary for his case. In some instances I fear he was saying things that he knew to be untrue. I did not feel I could always rely on his evidence.

27. GD was the company’s solicitor in relation to the transactions in the 1990s, in most of which he was involved as such. He was also involved in the 2006 sale. He gave evidence in relation to those matters, but particularly in relation to the 1990s he had little useful real recollection. His evidence in relation to those matters was largely reconstruction. He was impressively frank in acknowledging his mistakes in 1998, and extremely clear (and indeed accurate) in his exposition of the requirements of company law as he saw it. His oral evidence was clear and thoughtful, and he was particularly clear in distinguishing between the Articles as a concept and the Articles as a piece of paper, despite some cross-examination which was capable of confusing the two. He came over as a knowledgeable and careful solicitor and witness, notwithstanding the mistake he made in 1998.
28. RS is the current chairman of CHL… He is obviously a very experienced businessman. He gave evidence of events in 2013 and following, which he gave clearly, carefully and credibly, though by the end of trial that evidence was of limited significance.

32. JC is another of the children of [TC], and a minority shareholder… He had a limited actual recollection of events in 1998, and was in no way inclined to fill in the gaps with a pretended memory – he was frank about what he could not remember which, in the circumstances, supports the general honesty (as I find it to be) of the rest of his evidence. He was a reliable witness.

34. SC was another child of [TC], and again was a minority shareholder. Her evidence was clear, fair, sensible and credible.

36. TC gave evidence on the last day of witness evidence. He is now 85 and was physically frail but certainly not mentally frail. He was able to give me clear evidence of matters within his recollection. His failure to recollect historic detail was no worse than the failure of much younger witnesses. He had a strong recollection of matters which one would expect him to remember. All in all he was a good, reliable and credible witness. I accept his evidence.”