Christian Candy says loan to Mark Holyoake was ‘painful’

Christian Candy told a High Court judge on Monday that his £12m loan to a business associate who is now suing him over claims of extortion and intimidation was one of the “most painful transactions of my entire life”.

The billionaire property developer, 42, and his brother Nick, 44, are being sued by former associate Mark Holyoake in a £132m civil case relating to a soured property deal in Belgravia.

Mr Holyoake obtained a £12m personal loan from CPC, a company owned by Christian Candy, to help with the £42.5m purchase of Grosvenor Gardens House in Belgravia in 2011.

However, Mr Holyoake claims that the Candy brothers extorted and intimidated him, and that he had to sign subsequent loan agreements. He also alleges that he was a victim of an unlawful conspiracy intended to enable the Candys to obtain the Belgravia property below its intrinsic value.

Christian and Nick Candy have denied all the accusations.

On Monday, Christian Candy, who is being cross-examined in the High Court, denied claims that he had been “toying” with Mr Holyoake and that he had intended to “pull one over on him” to obtain Grosvenor Gardens House.

“It has been one of the most painful transactions of my entire life, no part of it has been fun,” Mr Candy said, adding that he had chased Mr Holyoake for repayment of the loan for 28 months.

Roger Stewart QC, representing Mr Holyoake, also asked Mr Candy about “sustained pressure” he is alleged to have placed on Mr Holyoake to repay the debt and which he knew to be “improper”.

Mr Holyoake has claimed that Mr Candy threatened to disclose the existence of his CPC loan to Investec, the bank that was underwriting the property project. Mr Candy also allegedly wanted loan security over Mr Holyoake’s home in Ibiza.

Mr Candy is said to have threatened to use the “nuclear option” and “ruin” Mr Holyoake’s life.

On Monday, Mr Candy was asked about language used in a 2012 email, in which he referred to having Mr Holyoake’s “balls in our hands”.

“You wanted his balls in your hand and to squeeze them — look at the language,” Mr Stewart put to Mr Candy in cross-examination.

Mr Candy said it “was not good language”, but added: “We are talking about Mark as a pathological liar . .. the loan was in default.”

Mr Candy added that he was looking to apply “legitimate, legal contractual pressure and there is nothing wrong with that”.

He was also shown an email sent to him by his brother, Nick, in February 2012, about Mr Holyoake. The email read: “[Mr Holyoake] needs to understand that if this goes nuclear not one bank will lend to him again . .. so we need to tell him we will speak to the [Investec] CEO unless he plays ball tomorrow.”

“This is an example of how your brother thought pressure should be applied,” Mr Stewart said.

The High Court case, which began last month, centres on Mr Holyoake’s purchase of Grosvenor Gardens House for £42.5m in October 2011. He had intended to re-develop the property.

Mr Holyoake approached Nick Candy, who he went to university with, for a £12m loan, and later signed the agreement with CPC. However, he claims that afterwards he started to suffer from intimidation from the Candy brothers, and had to sign subsequent loan agreements.

The Candy brothers deny Mr Holyoake’s claims in their entirety and are vigorously contesting the claims at the trial in London’s High Court.

The trial continues.