Aussie law firm steps up its legal fight in Quindell spat
LEGAL firm Slater & Gordon has opened a new front in its
£637 million court battle against the former Quindell, demanding it discloses documents on the company’s £412 million cash return to shareholders in 2015.
The Australian legal giant was stung into the action last year after its calamitous May 2015 acquisition of the professional service business of Quindell — now called Watchstone — which dealt with injury claims. Just three months later Quindell restated its accounts, turning previous profits into huge losses. S&G crashed to a AU$1 billion (£609 million) loss as a result last year, forcing it to rebuild its balance sheet, while the Serious Fraud Office is examining Watchstone.
The Australians are pursuing their main fraud allegations in the Commercial Court. But S&G has now applied for documents submitted to the Companies Court in 2015 by Quindell when it applied to reduce its share capital and enable £412 million to be returned to shareholders. S&G was not at the original hearing but its application claims that “had it known the full extent of the fraud, it can safely be assumed that S&G would have attended”.
Watchstone has refused to disclose the documents but S&G’s lawyers argue that “there should be complete transparency as to what Watchstone told the court in the reduction application.
“Although not critical to the present application, this is especially so in light of the serious clouds that have hung over the propriety of the operation of Watchstone’s business for many years, and the extent of the Commercial Court claim.” A hearing is likely to be held in October.
Watchstone, whose current board includes former Cabinet minister Lord Howard, has said it will defend the fraud claims robustly. It announced plans to break itself up earlier this year.
The company said: “S&G accepts that it ‘is not presently aware of anything to suggest the court was misled in any way’. It has no proper basis for receiving early disclosure of such documents and they are not, in any event, relevant to the dispute.” @russ_lynch