Newcastle United director Amanda Staveley must pay a Greek shipping magnate £3.4m following a high court bankruptcy battle.
Staveley, 50, was attempting to throw out a petition brought by Victor Restis, who initially said that he was owed £36.8m by the financier.
Earlier this month lawyers representing Staveley told the court she had “substantial ground for denying liability” and the dispute should be settled out of court. But in a judgment read this morning, Deputy Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Daniel Schaffer dismissed her bid, ruling that Ms Staveley was liable to pay the sum of £3.4m.
Mr Restis had provided £10m to Staveley’s PCP Capital Partners firm in 2008 but the court heard there was “a degree of ambiguity” over whether that money was an investment or loan. Restis initially claimed that Staveley was liable for £3.4m of the £10m - plus £2.1m in legal costs and £31.3m in interest.
Mr Restis has until April 22 to issue a bankruptcy petition following the decision, unless Ms Staveley pays the money owed before that date. The businesswoman has already said she intends to appeal the decision.
Martin Dubravka breaks silence after Man Utd loan terminated six months early
Mr Restis initially issued a statutory demand in May 2023 for a total of £36.8m, which included the outstanding loan sum of £3.4m and what Staveley's legal team described as “exorbitant” interest of £31.3m.
The tycoon’s barristers later dropped their claims for the interest and legal costs, instead claiming only the loan’s outstanding balance of £3.4m.
Following today's ruling, a statement from Staveley's team read: "Ms Staveley notes and welcomes that the ruling made a £33m reduction in the claim to principal only with no interest. Nevertheless, Ms Staveley continues to dispute personal liability and intends to lodge an appeal. This will be led by Mark Phillips KC of South Square Chambers.
"She would like to thank her legal team comprising Ted Loveday of Maitland Chambers, Mark Phillips KC, and Andrew Head and team of Forsters, for their excellent counsel and hard work."
Amanda Staveley pictured at a recent Newcastle United women's game. (Getty Images)Mr Loveday said the parties entered an agreement in May 2016 where they agreed to submit their disputes to arbitration, that Ms Staveley was not personally liable and that her company PCP Capital Partners would pay.
But the lawyer said his client was told to sign other documents between 2017 and 2021 which ultimately said Ms Staveley was personally liable and incrementally topped up the liability. He claimed that these “instruments” were “procured by duress, undue influence and/or misrepresentation” and that Ms Staveley felt intimidated into signing them.
However, the judge said Ms Staveley’s liability was “proved conclusively” in the documents and that it “beggars belief” she did not understand she was liable, adding the claim “ventures into the realm of fantasy and is completely implausible”.
The judge also said there was “no evidence” that Ms Staveley was under duress from Mr Restis or his lawyers.
He said: “There were clearly commercial pressures on Ms Staveley, but Mr Restis was perfectly entitled to press for payment." He added: “Was there any illegitimate pressure? In my judgment, on the facts of this case, no."
He said messages between the pair indicated a “warm business relationship” which “cannot be construed in any way, fashion or form to support a claim of unlawful distress”.
Howe explains Arsenal role in proving Newcastle's reality in Premier League
Amanda Staveley says she intends to appeal the court decision. (PA)In her written arguments, Raquel Agnello KC, representing Mr Restis, said Ms Staveley was sent documents, given time to look over them and given opportunities to make revisions before she signed them, including one in 2021 which superseded previous agreements and made Ms Staveley liable.
Ms Agnello told the court there was “a real lack of reality” in the claims of unlawful conduct and that Ms Staveley relied on “bare assertions” which were “inherently implausible”.
The judge also said Ms Staveley, who he described as an “astute businesswoman”, had “singularly failed” to show her judgment was unduly influenced by her diagnosis of Huntingdon’s disease when signing the documents. He deemed the claims, as well as those of being placed under duress, were “unsustainable” and had a “complete lack of credibility”.
and receive your daily dose of Mirror Football content. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. If you're curious, you can read our
Read more similar news:
Comments:
comments powered by Disqus
