Retailer Philip Day accused of ‘not telling truth’ in Stobart court case

RECLUSIVE retail billionaire Philip Day has been accused of “not telling the truth” in court during the final throes of an acrimonious legal battle between Stobart and its former boss Andrew Tinkler.

The Edinburgh Woollen Mill and Austin Reed owner was grilled over his role in one of 2018’s most colourful boardroom rows.

Mr Day was lined up as chairman of Stobart by parties hoping to oust incumbent Iain Ferguson. He never formally put his name forward, however.

Aviation and energy conglomerate Stobart is suing Mr Tinkler for breach of his fiduciary duties as a company director, breach of contract and using unlawful means in his effort to oust Mr Ferguson. Mr Tinkler, who was fired in June, denies wrongdoing and claims he was unlawfully sacked.

Mr Day, who owns a large estate in Cumbria that borders land owned by Mr Tinkler, said that despite holding a string of meetings with Mr Tinkler throughout the spring of 2018, he could “surmise” that there “was something not quite right in the company”.

However, he insisted that it was not until May 27 that he was made fully aware of Stobart’s troubles and was first asked to be considered as the company’s chairman.

Richard Leiper QC, who is leading Stobart’s legal team, asked Mr Day about an email sent by Mr Tinkler to Mr Day with attachments labelled “private and confidential”.

These referenced a plan code-named “Project Park”, an attempt to remerge Stobart with trucker Eddie Stobart Logistics, the Aim-quoted company that was spun off in 2017.

The court heard how on May 15 Mr Day emailed Mr Tinkler to say: “Now got Project Park, will read tonight. Look forward to seeing you and Ben at the Castle tomorrow night.”

Mr Day went on to say he did not read the attachment despite telling Mr Tinkler he had “read Project Park and it looks very interesting”.

Mr Day said: “It wasn’t a lie, it was … being courteous. He had sent me something to look at. I knew I’d get round to reading it and I just fired him back a quick holder just to say ‘I read it and I’ll come back to you’.”

Mr Leiper claimed Mr Day’s witness statement “gave a wholly inadequate account of your exchanges over this period”. Mr Day disagreed.