Approved Judgment - clients.squareeye.com

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE EADY
Approved Judgment
Butler-Creagh v Hersham
he claimed not to have spotted it at the time (cf. Rule 3.01 of the Code of Conduct).
That is not credible.
36. Finally, although she may be naïve in some respects, I am satisfied that Ms Hersham
is not so stupid or gullible as to commit herself to paying £5m on such a flimsy basis.
37. It is quite clear that Mr Butler-Creagh had a scheme in mind as soon as he knew the
property was available for sale. He could not possibly acquire it on his own, either in
person or through a corporate vehicle of his own, and therefore planned, as the 15
October attendance note amply demonstrates, to bring in someone else to provide the
funding. He was then to take a “turn” or “commission” by placing himself between
that person and the Marian Fathers. He saw the opportunity to make £5m for doing
effectively nothing. In order to achieve that, he would have to deceive both the
Marian Fathers, by giving them the false impression that he had the means and the
intention to acquire the property himself, and the hapless “punter” by pretending to
him or her that he was a necessary intermediary. In truth, and in law, he had no other
role than as an “officious bystander”.
38. Mr Butler-Creagh has thus failed to establish any such concluded agreement, as
pleaded, on 19 October 2008. It was said to have been reached during a telephone
conversation on that date, at some point following the visit to Fawley Court and a
discussion in the Hotel du Vin in Henley. Such telephone records as have been
provided, however, do not corroborate any such call. I need to come to conclusions,
however, as to the evidence advanced on this issue at trial on Mr Butler-Creagh‟s
behalf.
39. I was asked to accept that the deal was clinched largely on the basis of Mr Butler-
Creagh‟s own evidence. I am quite unable to do so. He told lie after lie in his
dealings with the Marian Fathers and Ms Hersham. He even lied in his witness
statements before the court, claiming for example that the Bank of Ireland had
previously provided finance for him in respect of other property developments. This
he sought to explain away in court as a “mistake”. He was an unusual witness. He
gave the impression of being quite confident and self-assured. Yet it emerged very
clearly from his two days and more of cross-examination that he lives in a parallel
universe where truth and falsehood imperceptibly merge, the one into the other, he
being quite insensitive to the distinction between them.
40. In his own mind, Mr Butler-Creagh justifies such behaviour as being necessary to
survive in what he described as “a commercial world out there”. Indeed, he accepted
in cross-examination that he was “not too scrupulous” in what he was prepared to say
to obtain business opportunities. In those circumstances, anyone would be unwise to
place reliance on what he says without independent corroboration. I reject without
hesitation his evidence that an oral agreement was reached on 19 October 2008.
41. In this context I need to address the evidence of Mr Dadley, who was described by Mr
Lewis as “the only independent witness”. He was also present at the Hotel du Vin on
19 October, along with Ms Hersham, her partner Mr Patrick Sieff and Mr Butler-
Creagh himself. He has a background in property and is “currently involved in an
international property development project”, which he is unable to specify further on
grounds of confidentiality. He seems to have been on friendly terms for some time
with Ms Hersham. He said that when he used to ring Ms Hersham or Mr Sieff he