Football club’s co-owner plans to appeal against decision in dispute with businessman Victor Restis
AP Avg
Mon 25 Mar 2024 16.31 CET
The Newcastle United co-owner Amanda Staveley faces having to pay a Greek shipping magnate more than £3m after a high court legal battle.
Staveley had been issued with a statutory demand by businessman Victor Restis, who claimed she was liable to pay him £3.4m owed from an investment he made in her business ventures.
The businesswoman had applied to the high court to throw out Restis’ application, with her lawyers telling a hearing earlier in March that she had “substantial ground for denying liability” and the dispute should be settled in arbitration.
In a judgment on Monday, the deputy insolvency and companies court judge, Judge Daniel Schaffer, dismissed her bid, ruling the dispute should be dealt with in court and that Staveley was liable to pay the sum.
Reading out his judgment at London’s Rolls Building, he said: “The demand totalling £3.4m is sound.”
Restis has until 22 April to issue a bankruptcy petition after the decision, unless Staveley pays the money owed before that date.
Ted Loveday, representing Staveley, previously told the court in written submissions that it was “common ground” that Restis had made a £10m investment in Staveley’s business ventures in 2008.
He said there was “plainly a degree of ambiguity about whether this was a loan or some other form of investment”.
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 “exorbitant” interest of £31.3m, Loveday had claimed.
The tycoon later dropped claims for the interest and legal costs, instead claiming only the loan’s outstanding balance.
Loveday said the parties entered an agreement in May 2016 where they agreed to submit their disputes to arbitration, that 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 Staveley was personally liable and incrementally topped up the liability.
He claimed these “instruments” were “procured by duress, undue influence and/or misrepresentation”, and that Staveley felt intimidated into signing them.
However, the judge said 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 Staveley was under duress from Restis or his lawyers.
He said: “There were clearly commercial pressures on Staveley, but Restis was perfectly entitled to press for payment.”
“Was there any illegitimate pressure? In my judgment, on the facts of this case, no,” he continued.
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”.
In her written arguments, Raquel Agnello KC, representing Restis, said 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 Staveley liable.
Agnello told the court there was “a real lack of reality” in the claims of unlawful conduct and that Staveley relied on “bare assertions” which were “inherently implausible”.
The judge also said 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”.
Staveley did not attend court on Monday.
After the decision, a spokesperson for her said: “Amanda Staveley notes the ruling of the high court today on her application to have set aside a statutory demand brought by Victor Restis.
“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.”
{{#ticker}}
{{topLeft}}
{{bottomLeft}}
{{topRight}}
{{bottomRight}}
{{#goalExceededMarkerPercentage}}{{/goalExceededMarkerPercentage}}{{/ticker}}
{{heading}}
{{#paragraphs}}
{{.}}
{{/paragraphs}}{{highlightedText}}
{{#choiceCards}}
One-timeMonthlyAnnual
Other
{{/choiceCards}}We will be in touch to remind you to contribute. Look out for a message in your inbox in . If you have any questions about contributing, please contact us.
2024-03-25 20:37:00
#Newcastles #Amanda #Staveley #pay #3.4m #Greek #tycoon #court #battle #Newcastle #United
